Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition, the Petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection and appointment of opposite party No. 6 on the post of Shiksha Mitra for Bal Primary School, Pathakpur, Asoha, District -Unnao. The Petitioner further seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the opposite parties to allow the Petitioner to resume his duty on the post of Shiksha Mitra at Bal, Primary School, Pathakpur, Asoha, District -Unnao in the interest of justice.
(2.) THE submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that in the year 2003 an advertisement was published for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra for Primary School, Pathakpur, Asoha, District -Unnao. The Petitioner along with several other candidates applied for the said post and finally selected by opposite parties. The Petitioner completed thirty days' training for the post of Shiksha Mitra w.e.f. 16.6.2003 to 15.07.2003 at District Education and Training Institute, Unnao. The further submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that opposite party No. 5 passed a resolution on 03.07.2004 whereby warning was given to the Petitioner to present herself in the school on 05.02.2005 and in case she does not come to the school, then another selection on the post of Shiksha Mitra shall be made. Subsequently, by means of resolution dated 10.11.2005 the earlier resolution was recalled by the village level Education Committee taking into consideration the illness and pregnancy of the Petitioner and it was resolved that the Petitioner be permitted to join on the post. The Petitioner was on maternity leave w.e.f. 13.07.2004 to 08.11.2005 and thereafter on 11.11.2005 and 02.12.2005. In the meantime, the post of Shiksha Mitra was re -advertised on 08.11.2005 and thereafter opposite party No. 6 was selected and appointed. Now by means of present writ petition, the Petitioner wants to challenge the selection and appointment of opposite party No. 6 made in the year 2005. No reason has been explained for approaching this Court after the lapse of about six years.
(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 Ors. 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.;