JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment dated 16-4-1999 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tibunal in Original Application No. 139 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. In the said original application the petitioner prayed for the following relief:
To direct the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents herein to appoint the applicant to the post of Deputy Collector category-II in Revenue Service for which post he is eligible for the recruitment to group-I services for 1983-84, quashing the appointment of the 4th respondent as Deputy Collector ordered in G.O.Ms.No. 883, Revenue (Ser-I) Department, dated 26-9-1990 and to treat the services of the applicant with effect from 20-10-1987 i.e. the date on which applicant joined as Deputy Superintendent of Police, as Deputy Collector duly assigning seniority at the appropriate place in the category of Deputy Collectors\with all attendant benefits and issue service and financial benefits.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 16-6-1983 issued by the A.P. Public Service Commission for State Civil Services examination (Group-I Services) the petitioner applied for and was selected. He, however, could not be appointed as Deputy Collector. He was appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. According, to the petitioner, he lodged a claim for the post of the Deputy Collector in the place of H. Ramulu, the lone Scheduled Tribe approved candidate who failed to turn up. Allegedly between the period 15-12-1988 and 26-3-1992 he submitted various representations having regard to the fact that the name of H. Ramulu was deleted from the list of approved candidates. On 10-8-1987, 15 other candidates were selected by the 3rd respondent. On 26-9-1990 the 4th respondent was appointed as a Deputy Collector. An original application was filed questioning the said appointment. Again one P. Tippanna was appointed as Deputy Collector who joined the said post on 27-11-1995. Similarly one B. Ramanjaneyulu joined in the post of Deputy Collector on 3-6-1996. The services of the 4th respondent were regularised with effect from 21-12-1988 by. G.O.Ms.No. 394, dated 6-6-1998. One D. Vara Prasad and others had filed an original application No. 5610 of 1998 wherein allegedly a counter-affidavit was filed wherefrom it transpired that the 4th respondent, was appointed in the vacancy of H. Ramulu.
3. By the impugned order dated 16-4-1999 the aforementioned original application was dismissed where against the present writ petition is filed.
4. The main contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to Scheduled Tribes category and having regard to the fact that the name of another member of Scheduled Tribe was selected, the name of H. Ramulu was deleted and, thus, the 4th respondent could not have been appointed in the said post as he had not been selected in the year 1983-84. It is stated that the petitioner is more meritorious than the 4th respondent as he had secured 720 marks as against 692 marks obtained by the 4th respondent.
5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as they failed to take into consideration that the delay in filing the original application was condoned and thus the said application could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The learned counsel would contend that delay in disposal of the original application could not have been attributed to the petitioner. In any event, having regard to the provisions of Section 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act the services of the 4th respondent could not have been directed to be regularised. It was submitted that the 4th respondent joined the post of Deputy Collector after lapse of 116 days which was in violation of G.O.Ms. No. 822 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 18-9-1967.
6. Mr, K. Lakshmi Narasimha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand drew our attention to the order of the Supreme Court. A wait list was prepared pursuant whereto the 4th respondent was appointed as he was first in the wait list. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that even in the year 1992 the three other candidates filed original application questioning the appointment of the 4th respondent. But the said original application was dismissed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel would urge that even a special leave petition filed there against was dismissed. Mr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha would urge that having regard to the fact that the petitioner herein had already joined the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and his probation has been declared and he having been regularised in services, the question of granting any relief to the petitioner at this stage does not arise. It was further submitted that the petitioner herein did not relinquish the job and in terms of the extant rules the panel and the select list expired by efflux of time.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was found to be more meritorious than the 4th respondent but from the factual matrix as noticed hereinbefore. it is no doubt that the petitioner herein accepted the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It may be that he lodged his claim in relation to the post of Deputy Collector but it has not been disputed before us that in terms of the rules he was put on probation and upon completion of the period of probation, his services have been regularised. The petitioner filed the writ petition only in the year 1983. The service of the 4th respondent, as noticed hereinbefore, was regularised with effect from 21-12-1988 by G.O.Ms.No. 394, dated 6-6-1998.
8. It may be that the Tribunal condoned the delay but condonation of delay alone, in our opinion, would not mean that the court or the tribunal loses its jurisdiction to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. It is one of the settled legal principles in service jurisprudence that settled things should not be unsettled after a long number of years. (See N. Kotam Raju v. Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kakinada, (D.B.)). The 4th respondent had been working since 1991. The services of the 4th respondent were regularised with effect from 21-12-1988 on the ground that he had been appointed in the batch of Deputy Collector for the year 1983-84. The S.L.P. No. 4041 of 1989 filed by A.V. Bhogeswardu was disposed of on 21-9-1989 directing thus:
We accordingly dispose of the appeal by directing that the existing vacancies remaining to be filled up on account of non-joining of selected candidates for whatever reason should be filled up by the present list.
9. The appointment of the 4th respondent was made in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, it would not be proper to pass an order which would run contrary to the order passed by the Supreme Court. It may be noticed that the appointment of the 4th respondent was challenged by A. Tirupathi in O.A.No. 35501 of 1990 and another Scheduled Caste candidate in Writ Petition No. 53243 of 1990 on the same ground as that of the petitioner herein. The said petitions were dismissed on 30-6-1994 and as noticed hereinbefore a special leave petition filed thereagainst being No. 23459 of 1995 was also dismissed on 29-9-1995. One M Naga Rao also filed an original application before the tribunal questioning the appointment of the 4th respondent being No. 4040 of 1992 which has also been dismissed.
10. The 4th respondent had not opted for the other posts and he was in the wait list whereas the petitioner joined in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
11. We, therefore, are of the opinion that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and particularly in view of the fact situation obtaining herein, this Court should not exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is now a well settled principle of law that a person who sleeps over his right for a long time may not be granted any relief, in A. Hamsaveni v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 52 it has been held :
Sleeping over the rights, if there were any, with eyes open does not cure laches.
[See State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, . State of Maharashtra v. Additional Commissioner and Ors., , High Court of M.P. v. Mahesh Prakash, AIR 1994 SC 2559]. Such relief may also be not granted when it is likely to prejudice the right of the other persons. Furthermore, in terms of Rule 6 of the A.P. Service Comimission Rules of Procedure, the Commission may select candidates from the ranking list in force in place of those who relinquish the selection or who do not join duty within the time given. The petitioner had not opted to remain in the ranking list but has joined as the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus, he sat on the fence for a long time.
13. In view of the fact that the petitioner not only was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police, his services had been regularised, we are of the opinion that at this late stage he should not be granted the relief of appointment as Deputy Collector. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.