JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.
2. The petitioner had applied in response to an advertisement dated 20.3.1998 for two different posts of Executive Officer Class III, Post Codes 1 and 22. He appeared in the written test. The result of the written examination was declared on 4/5th of October, 1998 and the petitioner was declared successful. He was subsequently called for interview, but he was not selected. Aggrieved against his non-selection, one Kulbir Singh who was similarly situated as the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5646 of 1999. He, however, subsequently, filed a miscellaneous application for permission to withdraw the writ petition. Consequently, while accepting the prayer, the Court directed the writ petition to be treated as one filed as Public Interest Litigation. Thereafter, numerous other petitions were filed. The petitioner had also filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9359 of 1999 challenging his non-selection. All the petitions were heard together.
3. During the Counsel of the hearing of the petitions, the State of Punjab submitted that a fresh selection would be made, after strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed. The petitioner again appeared in the selection process. He was, however, again not selected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner had been wrongly allotted two roll numbers for the examination. For the post against Code No. 1, the petitioner was assigned Roll No. 14053 and Roll No. 14640 was assigned for the post against Code No. 22. In the written examination, he was arbitrarily given 122 marks in the written examination in Roll. No. 14053 and 142 Marks in Roll No. 14640. The respondents have arbitrarily considered 122 marks as the marks obtained by the petitioner and ignored the 142 marks. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the official respondents have appointed respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who were not even mentioned in the select list.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Earlier the writ petitions had been disposed of on the statement made by the respondents in the written statement that a new Selection Committee would be constituted in accordance with the recruitment rules. A uniform criteria for selection would be formed. Fresh dates of interviews will be fixed. The marks awarded to the candidates in the written test will be immediately put in a sealed envelope. Their answer scripts would also be separately sealed. These envelopes will be opened after finalisation of the interview and the marks secured by the candidates in the written test as indicated in the original answer scripts would be added to the marks awarded at the interview. The petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench in view of the aforesaid statements. The respondents were directed to complete the selection process within four months.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the selection procedure adopted by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary. In fact the Court had ensured complete impartiality by directing that the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test would not be known to the Interview Committee. The petitioners had applied for one of the eleven posts of Executive Officer. The merit list which has been attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-6 shows that 41 candidates had obtained 145 marks. So even if the petitioner was to be given the benefit of 145 marks, he would figure at Sr. No. 139. Therefore, he would not be selected for appointment even if he is given the credit of 145 marks. The 11th Candidate on the merit had scored 188 marks. Even otherwise no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the writ petition has been filed after a period of 3 years of unexplained delay. It has been held by Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, , as under :
“2. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Articles 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Articles 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner’s petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellants’ petition as well as the appeal.”
In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.