Writ petitions filed after prolonged, unexplained delay are liable to dismissal on grounds of laches.

The petitioner claimed that he had participated in the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 2016 for appointment as a driver sepoy and that, despite his result, he was not permitted to join service.

He alleged that he was orally debarred on the ground of colour-vision deficiency without issuance of notice.

The recruitment process and publication of the result were completed in 2017. The petitioner nevertheless approached the Patna High Court for the first time in 2026, approximately eight years after the alleged cause of action arose.

The record contained no documentary proof that the petitioner had made any effort to obtain joining between 2017 and 2026; his assertion that he had made oral efforts was not accepted by the Court.

Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, since the petitioner approached the Court approximately eight years after completion of the recruitment process without producing evidence of any intervening effort or explanation for the delay?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for being taken back or appointed as a driver sepoy on the allegation that he had been orally debarred on the ground of colour vision without notice?

The Court applied the doctrine of delay and laches, under which a writ court exercising extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction may refuse relief where an aggrieved person approaches the Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay; delay reflects inaction, may prejudice accrued rights, and equity aids the vigilant rather than those who sleep over their rights.

The Court relied principally on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, particularly paragraphs 16 and 17, which hold that courts must scrutinise the explanation for delay and may reject belated claims where the delay causes prejudice or reflects indolence.

It also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Gyasuddin @ Gyasuddin Khan v. The State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 13306 of 2023, decided on 11 March 2024, recognising that an unexplained and inordinate delay is sufficient to deny writ relief.

The Court found that the petitioner’s alleged grievance arose no later than 2017, when the recruitment process and result were completed, but that he took no documented step to secure joining until filing the writ petition in 2026.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s assertion of oral efforts because no supporting document or contemporaneous representation was produced.

Applying the principles in T.T. Murali Babu and Gyasuddin, the Court held that an unexplained delay of approximately eight years disentitled the petitioner to discretionary writ relief.

In view of this threshold defect, the Court did not grant relief on the merits of the alleged oral debarment or colour-vision objection.

Since the petitioner approached the Court approximately eight years after the alleged cause of action and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or documentary evidence of having pursued joining, the petition was found devoid of merit and was dismissed.

No direction was issued for the petitioner’s appointment or joining as a driver sepoy.