J.S.Khehar, J. - (1.) The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition reveals that the services of the petitioner were regularised by an order dated 6.3.1985. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims regularisation retrospectively with effect from 23.4.1974 i.e. when the petitioner completed one year's service with the respondents. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner, in sum and substance, is impugning the order of his regularisation dated 6.3.1985. The order dated 6.3.1985 was passed more than 20 years before the filing of the instant writ petition.
(2.) Even a civil suit is not competent to redress the grievance of the petitioner in view of the law of limitation.
(3.) For the reasons recorded above, we find no justification in entertaining the instant writ petition for reasons of delay and laches. Dismissed for reasons of delay and laches.;