- (1.) The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated June 14, 2006 is seeking the following principal reliefs : (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent each of them, their agents, servants and subordinates to fill up the 2nd post of Non-Official Marriage Officer in Shyampur Block II, District Howrah forthwith; (b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents each of them, their agents, servants and subordinates to take appropriate steps for appointment to the 2nd post of Non-Official Marriage Officer in Shyampur Block II District Howrah in place and instead as the 2nd candidate; (c) A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents each of them their agents, servants and subordinates to certify and transmit the records of the case so that the conscionable justice may be done. The selection process was initiated in April 1997; candidates were interviewed in 2002; results were published, presumably, immediately thereafter; and appointment was made, also presumably, in 2002. The petitioner started making representations in September 2004. He brought this petition on June 14, 2006. It came up for admission hearing, for the first time, only on July 23, 2010.
(2.) I had to adjourn admission hearing on July 23, 2010, July 26, 2010, July 27, 2010 and August 3, 2010. The first adjournment was for the reason that none appeared for the parties; the second adjournment was at the instance of advocate for the petitioner; the third and fourth adjournments were at the instance of advocate for the State who submitted that records of the selection were not available.
(3.) Not a single word has been used in the petition for explaining the inordinate delay in approaching the High Court under art.226. The delay is not only in approaching, but also in taking steps for admission hearing of the petition. The petitioner approached the Court around four years after the appointment, and then took first step for admission hearing of the petition around four years after the date of filing of the petition. On these facts it is quite natural that because of the delay today the State will not be in a position to defend the case at all. Records of the selection process initiated in 1997 and concluded in 2002 are not available, and there is nothing unnatural in this. In my opinion, on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay alone this petition should be dismissed, though, in my opinion, there is no merit in the case as well.;