SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.- Through the instant constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner Muhammad Kalim Khan has sought the following relief:- In wake of the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that on acceptance/issuance of this writ petition and by directing official respondents to appoint the petitioner as Patwari (BPS-5) in their department being candidate on merit and respondent No. 4 appointed respondents No. 6 to 10, who were below in patwar list while the petitioner was at serial No. 209 of the patwar list while private respondents who are below in merit and were at serial Nos. 248, 242, 238, & 243 respectively, with further prayer that the petition of the petitioner may please be disposed of in accordance with the judgment of this Hon'ble Court vide writ petition bearing No. 278-D/ 2012 titled Zafar Iqbal vs. SMBR etc dated 09.10.2013 and writ petition bearing No. 694-D/2010 titled Kamil Nawaz vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc dated 17.10.2013.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner passed his patwar examination on 17.10.2001, whereafter his name was placed in the concerned register of patwar candidates, whereas names of respondents No.6,7,8,9 and 10 were reflected at serial Nos. 248, 242, 240, 238 and 243 respectively in the said register , however , despite being junior to the petitioner , the respondents No. 6 to 10 were appointed as Patwa ri on 21.12.2014 from the list of patwar passed candidates ignoring the seniority of petitioner and ultimately his name was struck off/deleted from the said list on 10.1 1.2009 being overage, hence, this constitutional petition.
3. In pursuance of order of this Court, respondents filed better comments, raising therein many factual and legal objections.
4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was senior to the respondents No. 6 to 10 but despite his seniority, he was ignored and respondents No. 6 to 10 were appointed as Patwari vide appointment order dated 24.12.2014, whereafter, his name was deleted from the list of patwar passed candidates on 10.11.2009 being overage that too without giving him any intimation. He next contended that under similar circumstances, one Kamil Nawaz and Zafar Iqbal brought constitutional petition bearing No. 694-D/2010 & 278-D/2012, which were allowed vide order dated 17.10.2012 and 31.10.2012, therefore, the petitioner deserves the same treatment.
5. Conversely , learned Assistant Advocate General representing the official respondents argued that the constitutional petition is hit by laches. He next argued that the petitioner was born on 13.12.1972, therefore, his name was deleted from the list of patwar candidates being overage on 10.11.2009; that the petitioner has not challenged deletion of his name from the patwar passed candidates before any forum and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that no doubt the name of petitioner appears at serial No. 209 in the concerned register of patwar candidates and name of the respondent No. 6 to 10 appears below the name of petitioner, however, they were appointed as Patwari vide office order dated 24.12.2004, but their appointment orders were never challenged by the petitioner, whereafter, his name was deleted from the concerned register of patwar passed candidates on 10.11.2009 being overage, which too, was not challenged before any forum and the petitioner slept over his right for indefinite period and ultimately, filed the constitutional petition on 23.12.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain the laches and delay in approaching to the Court, he was not vigilant in seeking relief from the Court in due course of time, he could not put forth explanation, what to speak of a plausible explanation in approaching the Court at a belated stage.
8. It is by now settled that the constitutional petition has to be filed within a reasonable time, therefore, we hold that the petitioner is guilty of contumacious lethargy , inaction, laxity and negligent in the prosecution of his cause. In this respect, reliance can well be placed on the case of S.A Jameel vs. Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Cooperative Department and others (2005 SCMR 126 ), wherein it was held as under:- "If High Court finds that the party invoki ng constitutional jurisdiction is guilty of contumacious lethargy , inaction, laxity or gross negligence in the prosecution of a cause for enforcement of right, it would be justified in non-suiting such person on the premise of laches.
Likewise, reliance can well be placed on the case reported as Jawad Mir Muhammad and others vs. Haroon Mirza and others (PLD 2007 S. C 472), wherein it was held that question of delay/laches in filing constitutional petition has to be given serious consideration and unless a satisfactory and plausible explanation is forthcoming for delay in filing constitutional petition, the same cannot overlooked or ignored subject to facts and circumstances of each case.
9. For what has been discussed, the writ petition is dismissed being hit by laches.