R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who was appointed as a lecturer, in 1987 in Radha Ballabh Intermediate College Thaphind, District Etawah became Principal in 1971. Thereafter dispute arose between him and the Zila Parished resulting in litigation in tribunal, in this Court and Supreme Court (S.L.P. No. 7896 of 1988 dismissed by Supreme Court on 15th July, 1988). What was the nature of litigation and what was its outcome need not be narrated or opt that petitioner could not function as Principal and during this period one person was appointed as, permanent Principal, who also retired. On his retirement opposite party No. 6 was appointed as Principal on transfer from Kishan Vidyapeeth Intermediate College, Dileeppur, in 1983. Since then he is continuing. The petitioner in 1988 filed this petition and challenged the order of transfer and also claimed that no selection for the post of Principal through Commission be made in the aforesaid college as if somebody is selected in place of opposite party No. 6 then even if the petitioner succeeded the petitioner shall not be entitled to any relief as interest of third party shall intervene.
(2.) We have examined the matter carefully. In our opinion this petition for staying selection of a Principal in Kishan Vidyapeeth Intermediate College is wholly misconceived. To us it appears the petitioner is fighting battle for someone else of this college who must be acting as Principal and must be interested that no one should be appointed through Commission. As regard challenge to the order of transfer the claim may be well founded in view of Supreme Court's decision but the petitioner appears to be precluded from seeking any relief as he did not approach this Court within reasonable time. In other words the claim is barred by laches. The order is passed in 1983. There could be no justification for petitioner to wait for five years. The argument of the learned counsel that he was pursuing his remedy by filing representation does not in the circumstances of the case entitle petitioner to claim that the delay in filing the petition be condoned. Apart from it things which have become settled due to notion of petitioner cannot be unsettled after five years without any justification. In our opinion it is not fit case for interference under jurisdiction.
(3.) The petition is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.;