- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard Sri I. R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 23-4-1988. Annexure-4 to the writ petition by which he petitioner's claim for appoint ment ns 3 reserve pool teacher has been rejected. The petitioner has alleged that he worked as Lecturer in Economics during the strike of the teachers in 1978 and hence he has claimed appointment on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1984 (1) UPL3sc 771 Prabodh Verma v. State of U. P. By the impugned order this claim of the petitioner was rejected and hence this peti tion. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Inspector of Schools has no power to review his earlier order dated 12-6-1987 and he further sub mitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. In my opinion, it is not necessary to examine these contentions raised by the petitioner as this petition is liable to be dismissed on a short ground. It is settled law that writ jurisdiction is discretionary juris diction and hence this Court is not bound to interfere with the impugned order if it is of the opinion that the petitioner made his claim after a great delay. The facts of the present case disclose that the first petition filed in this Court by the petitioner was in the year 1987. The strike took place in 1978 and it appears that the petitioner did noth ing for almost nine years and he suddenly woke up in 1987 and started making repre sentations and filing writ petitions. In my opinion since the petitioner made his claim after a great delay it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Con stitution.
(3.) IN the impugned order, it is men tioned that the papers submitted by the petitioner in support of his claim were fictious and collusive, but I am not going into this question as I am dismissing the petition on the ground stated above. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;