Rudal Kumar Yadav & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

“I. For issuance of a writ or order or a direction upon the Respondents to forthwith issue letter of appointment/joining to the Petitioners for the post of Home Guard in the Home Guard Corps in light of the order dated 20.06.2024 delivered in LPA number 645 of 2021 by the division bench of this honourable court and the order dated 23.06.2025 passed in CWJC number 9427 of 2025 (Ajay Kumar Yadav versus the state of Bihar and others).

II. For further holding and declaration that the Petitioners having duly qualified the physical test and their names having been included in the merit list are entitled to appointment to the said post.

III. For further holding and a declaration that the action of the Respondents in not filling the remaining vacancies, despite availability of meritorious and eligible candidates such as the Petitioners, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

IV. For further holding and a declaration that the case of the Petitioners is squarely covered by the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in Ajeet kumar yadav & Others v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [C.W.J.C. No. 9427 of 2025] and judgment dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in Bhartendu Jha & Others v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [C.W.J.C. No. 1706 of 2017] and Manjay Kumar & Others v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [C.W.J.C. No. 11645 of 2019] along with analogous cases wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners therein and accommodate them against the available vacancies in their respective districts and for a consequential direction to the Respondents herein to similarly consider the case of the present Petitioners in light of the said judgment and extend the same relief as granted therein.

V. For further holding and a declaration that out of the total 308 notified vacancies (227 rural + 81 urban) for District Darbhanga, only 190 vacancies have been filled, and 118 posts remain unfilled which can very well be filled up by appointment of the petitioners who are eligible and are already included in the merit list.

VI. For grant of any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners are found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

“16.

Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant- a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.

17.

In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons- who compete with "Kumbhakarna" or for that matter "Rip Van Winkle". In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.”

“11.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs, the present writ petition stands dismissed, being barred by the principles of res judicata. This Court further finds that the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as well, inasmuch as the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly after an unexplained delay of 26 years. Thus considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, as referred to herein above in the preceding paragraphs, as also considering the maxim- “equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights”, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner has not filed the present writ petition within a reasonable period of time, this Court is not under any legal obligation to entertain the writ petition, especially considering the fact that the petitioner has not offered any reason whatsoever, for the enormous delay which has taken place in approaching this Court, hence, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as well.”