- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Writ Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61072 of 2011, Subhash Chandra versus State of U.P. and others, the appellant has preferred this intra -court appeal.
(3.) THE judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 dismissing the writ petition reads thus: - "Petitioner has rushed to this Court for quashing of the select list/appointment letter dated 26.02.2009. Factual matrix of the case is that in the present case selection proceedings for selection and appointment on the post of runner (class IV post) by issuing advertisement Petitioner submits that in the advertisement so issued in all three posts had been advertised, out of which two were for general (open category) category and one was reserved for scheduled caste category. Petitioner has stated that he was also one of the candidates and was called for interview on 25.02.2009; he faced interview, and when select list was published on 26.02.2009, amongst the candidates so selected there was no one from scheduled caste category. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has proceeded to mention that he had no information of the said selection, and he was informed by one I. B. Singh of the aforementioned information; then he sought information under the Right to Information Act, and then petitioner claims that reply has been given by the Executive Engineer, Rihand Bandh Civil Khand, Pipari, District Sonbhadra on 02.10.2011, and then petitioner has rushed to this Court. Sri P.C. Singh Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case, selection made is not at in consonance with the provisions as contained in the advertisement. Opposing the said submissions, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has contended that the petitioner has no satisfactorily explained the delay and latches; as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. After respective arguments have bee advanced, factual situation which emerges is to the effect that the select list, which is subject matter of challenge, had been finalized long back in February, 2009, and within reasonable period at no point of time, petitioner ever made any challenge. To the contrary petitioner submits that he acquired information from one I.B. Singh on 10.10.2011, and thereafter he represented the matted. The ground mentioned that the petitioner had got no knowledge will not absolve the petitioner on delay and latches front, specially when selected candidates have already joined and performing their duties. Such belated challenge made after two years and 143 days cannot be condoned in the facts of the case, especially when the petitioner was not at all vigilant towards his right and claims to have acquired knowledge through I.B. Singh. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of latches." Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had properly explained the reasons for delay in filing the writ petition and the Writ Court has not considered the explanation for delay and has wrongly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches.;