JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner is claiming employment on the ground that his land was acquired by the respondents. The godown on the acquired land was constructed in 1979 it is alleged by Mr. B. S. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner that since 1979, he had been making representations and the respondents have been assuring the petitioner of giving appointment, but ultimately no appointment having been given, a writ petition bearing number 33713 of 1998 was moved. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 24th October, 1998 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. By the order dated 4th January, 1999, the representation was rejected. The said order is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is this order which has since been challenged in this writ petition. Mr. Pandey contends that by reason of the eligibility of the petitioner, the petitioner should be given appointment right from 1979 as has been prayed for in the writ petition in prayer (ii) as quoted below :
"(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the appointment of the petitioner on Class III post with retrospective effect, i.e., 1979 granting him all the consequential benefit and also to pay him regular salary and other emoluments permissible under law."
Mr. Pandey contends that the petitioner can maintain this very prayer because of the fact that cause of action has finally arisen on 4th January, 1999 after the writ petition was entertained and had been disposed of on 24th October, 1998.
2. Mr. Sharad Sharma learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that the writ petition is belated one and, therefore, there cannot be a question of retrospective appointment.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel at length.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner's land was acquired before 1979 and the concerned godown or warehouse was constructed in 1979. On his own showing, the petitioner had contended that he had been claiming appointment right from 1979 and despite such assurance from the respondents, appointment has not been given. From 1979 to 1999 a long 20 years have passed. The petitioner has not been able to explain the delay. Thus, it shows that the petitioner is guilty of delay, laches and negligence, which is one of the ground for which this Court refuses to grant the relief. Moving the writ petition in October, 1998 and obtaining an order for consideration of the representation does not absolve the delay. It is only a direction to consider the representation in accordance with law. Therefore, the law cannot be moulded by reason of such an order. The law has to be accepted as it is and the delay cannot be over-looked.
5. Be that as it may, the order dated 24th October, 1998 has also given reasons that the organization is over-staffed and they are shedding the strength of staff by compulsorily retiring many of its staff, which is one of the reason for not considering the application of the petitioner and that no appointment can be given by reason of the decision taken on 4th May, 1988, which has already been intimated to the petitioner. It does not appear that the petitioner had ever contended that he was never intimated on 4th May. 1988 as has been contended in the said order. Neither he has explained as to how after that intimation, he could again revive his cause of action after 10 years and then again seem to revive It again ultimately after 20 years. It is too much to ask for appointment on the ground of acquisition of land after 20 years of waiting. Then again a prayer for appointment with retrospective effect from 1979 is unknown in law. The question of delay stands in the way of the petitioner and it is on this ground that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Even if the petitioner had made a representation, the same is not a remedy appointed by law. In the case of Moti Lal Jain v. Director. Technical Education. 1996 (3) UPLBEC 2077 it was so held that such delay stands in way of relief to be claimed through writ jurisdiction.
6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No cost.