Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the Petitioner is challenging the selection of opposite party No. 5 on the post of Shiksha Mitra, which was made in the year 2005. More than five years have passed. No reason has been explained by learned Counsel for the Petitioner for not approaching the Court at the relevant time.
(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in : 2009 (2) SCC 479, S.S. Balu and Anr. v. State of Kerala and others, while examining the issue of delay, pleased to observe as under: It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". The Government Order was issued on 15.01.2002. The Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as party -Respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ Petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the Appellants at this stage.;