MOHD PARVEZ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This Special Appeal has been filed with the delay of more than two months. The delay is condoned. The appellants assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.8.2004 saying that their case was identical to the case of various other petitioners who had filed Writ Petition No. 1788(S/S) of 1998 and they also prayed for declaration of the result in pursuance of the earlier selection held on the post of Junior Clerk and, therefore, the writ petition could not have been rejected merely on the ground of laches. The learned Single Judge has found that the appellants approached the Court after lapse of seven years and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition since the learned Single Judge was apprised at the fact that against the judgment and order passed in the earlier writ petitions filed by the different persons, Special Appeal No. 209 of 2004(S/B) was filed, which was pending, he gave liberty to the appellants to move appropriate application for impleadment in the pending Special Appeal, but it appears that the appellants did not take advantage of the aforesaid liberty. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 16.8.2004. Special Appeal No. 209 of 2004 (S/B) has been decided on 30.7.2007 but during long three years also the appellants did not approach to move any application in the pending Special Appeal. The order passed in Special Appeal No.209 of 2004 (S/B) has been produced before us, wherein the benefit of the aforesaid order has been confined to only those persons/candidates, who approached this Court challenging the cancellation of selection. That being so, the present appeal can not be entertained now. The appellants were guilty of laches and if, they were aggrieved by their non-selection, non-declaration of result and cancellation of selection, they had opportunity to approach the Court but knowing fully about the aforesaid facts they did not do so. The writ petition preferred by the other persons were decided on 11.2.2004. It was much thereafter that the appellants preferred the writ petition. We, thus, do not find any illegality in the order under Appeal. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed.