Oral Order

1. Heard Mr. Ali Sher Ansari, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 and Ms. Forum Bimal Sukhadwala, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State.

2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

          "A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;

          B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to de-reserve the backlog vacancies which were reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other backward caste candidates by way of conversion and further be pleased to direct the respondents to fill up the unfiled reserved vacancies for the post of Vidhya Sahayak for Urdu Medium on the basis of open merit from amongst the applicants who have applied for the post in question in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.12.2009;

          c. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship will be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants and subordinate officers from proceeding further in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.12.2009;

          D. Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and/or further order/s which may be deemed fit in the interest of the justice;"

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted here that the petitioner has applied for the post of Vidhya Sahayak pursuance to the advertisement dated 21.12.2009, but remained silent for more than a decade and wake up from slumber and has filed this petition in the year 2017.

4. The reason of filing this petition appears to be fact that other candidates who applied pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement approached this Court in time in the year 2009/2010 and succeeded, but the order passed by my predecessor was quashed and set aside in those matters (Special Civil Application No. 13924 of 2009 and allied matters) and thereafter, the matters were remanded back to this Court.

5. After noticing the said development, the petitioners have approached this Court with the aforesaid prayers.

6. This Court has a query before the learned advocate for the petitioner that whether any explanation as regard to delay in approaching the Court is stated in the petition or not. Mr. Ansari, learned advocate for the petitioner has candidly submitted before this Court that there is no reason of delay stated in the petition.

7. According to my view, merely because other candidates who applied pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement and approached this Court in time and their petitions are pending for adjudication, it would not mean that the present petitioners can also be joined in that wagon and their claims now being stale cannot be examined on merits. According to my view, the petitioners are fence sitter, who are not entitled to receive any discretionary relief from this Court.

8. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and it needs to be disposed only on the ground of delay and latches which I do so.

9. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs.