ORDER
1. The petitioner, Dharmendra Singh, passed his High School examination in the year 1989 in Second Division. Thereafter he passed his Intermediate examination in the year 1991 in Second Division securing 251 marks out of 500. A photostat copy of the mark-sheet of the Intermediate examination is Annexure 'II' to the writ petition. The petitioner applied for admission in B.Sc. Part I giving option for the subject Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. He was, however, allowed the subjects Zoology, Botany and Military Science. His contention is that the Principal, S.M. College, Chandausi, District Moradabad, respondent, assured the petitioner that the subject 'Military Science' will be changed afterwards and at the time of admission he cannot be given the subject of Chemistry as the total marks in the Intermediate examination, secured by him were below the standard fixed for giving the subject of Chemistry which was offered to the candidates, who had secured 254 marks and above in the intermediate examination, but since the petitioner had secured only 251 Marks, he was not given the subject of Chemistry. Despite repeated verbal assurances given by the respondent from time to time, the subject was not changed from 'Military Science' to 'Chemistry'. Ultimately, on 10-1-1992, the respondent clearly refused to change the subject. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. His contention is that he is a backward class candidate, being Aahir by caste and was entitled to some relaxation and so he should have been given the subject of Chemistry despite his having secured 251 marks in his Intermediate examination.
2. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was not given the combination of Zoology, Botany and Chemistry as he had not obtained the requisite number of marks required by a candidate for getting admission in that combination. Instead the petitioner was offered the combination of Zoology, Botany and Military Science, keeping in view the marks obtained by him in his Intermediate examination. The petitioner in his application form had also mentioned 'Military Studies' as one of the subjects in the alternative to 'Chemistry'. A copy of the application form is Annexure 'CA-I' to the counter-affidavit. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit it is mentioned that a separate merit list for the academic year 1991-92 was prepared for the students belonging to backward classes. Since, admittedly, the petitioner had secured 251 marks only, which was below the total number of marks obtained by other candidates in the merit list of backward class candidates and so he was not allowed the subject of Chemistry. It was vehemently denied that the respondent had given verbal assurances to the petitioner to accept Military Science as one of the subjects, which will be changed later. It was also not admitted that the respondent on 10-1-1992 refused to allow the subject of Chemistry to the petitioner.
3. In para 12 of the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner, for the first time, took the stand that throughout the session he had been attending the class of Chemistry.
4. With the consent of the parties the petition has been heard and is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
5. These facts are not disputed that the petitioner passed his High School examination in the year 1989 and Intermediate examination in the year 1991 in Second Division. Thereafter he sought admission in B.Sc. Part I. An application form was filled up by him, a copy of which is Annexure 'CA-F to the counter affidavit. The subjects offered by him were Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. He was however, allowed the subjects. Zoology, Botany and Military Science. In paras 4 and 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has himself admitted that he could not get the subject of Chemistry as he had obtained only 251 marks in the Intermediate examination which were below the standard fixed by the respondent for giving the subject of Chemistry. On his own admission, the subject of Chemistry was given only to those candidates, who had secured 254 marks and above in their Intermediate examination. It is, therefore, clear that the reason for not giving the subject of Chemistry to the petitioner was that he had not secured requisite number of marks in the Intermediate examination. According to the merit list, this subject of Chemistry was offered to those candidates who had secured 254 and more marks in the Intermediate examination. Admittedly, the petitioner had secured 251 marks and as such he was denied the subject of Chemistry.
6. The content ion of the petitioner is that since he belongs to backward class he was entitled to some relaxation in the selection of subjects even on low percentage of marks. In para 6 of the counter affidavit it has specifically been stated that the merit list for the students belonging to backward classes was prepared separately and in that list only those candidates, who had secured 254 marks and above were given the subject of Chemistry. Since the petitioner, on his own admission, had obtained only 251 marks, he, according to the merit list, was rightly refused the subject of Chemistry. Thus, no illegally or arbitrariness has been shown in the case of the petitioner in not allowing him the subject of Chemistry. The contention of the the petitioner that the principal had assured him to change the subject of Military Science later cannot be accepted as correct. It cannot be believed that the petitioner waited for the Whole session that the assurance given by the respondent may bear fruits and it was only on 10-1-1992 when the respondent failed to oblige him, he rushed to this Court. All these allegations against the respondent are imaginary and cannot be believed. For these reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed by him.
7. The petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. It is" well settled that under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary. The relief under Art. 226 cannot be claimed as of right. No doubt, when the relief claimed is one relating to the enforcement or protection of fundamental right, the court has to grant it once the right and infringement thereof are established. But if Art. 226 is invoked "for any other purpose", it is discretionary power of the High Court to grant or to refuse such relief. One of the grounds for refusing relief "for any other purpose" is that the petitioner has been guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, if the petitioner wants to invoke the extraordinary remedy available under Art. 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will be adequate ground for refusing to exercise the discretion.
8. In the instant case, the session started in July 1991. Even if the contention of the petitioner that the classes commenced from October, 1991 is accepted, still there are laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the present writ petition on 22-1-1992. His contention that he did not come to the Court earlier because of the assurance given by the respondent from time to time cannot be accepted as correct. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit, for the first time, took the plea that he had been attending the classes in chemistry throughout the session. This plea appears to have been taken for the first time so as to enable him to appear in the practical examination of Chemistry which, according to the petitioner, is to commence from 18-4-1992. There is no proof in support of this contention that he had been attending the classes in chemistry throughout the session. Moreover, it cannot be believed that the petitioner, who was given the subject of Military Science was allowed to appear in the classes of Chemistry. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner has not been vigilant and that there has been no diligence on his part in pursuing the remedy. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. It may be mentioned that the explanation for delay has not been found satisfactory.
9. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Petition dismissed.