S. Siri Jagan, J.@mdashThe petitioner is a person who was included in the rank list for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector trainees. According to the petitioner, that list came into force on 19.8.2006. The petitioner submits that the Government had reported 49 vacancies against which no advice has been made and therefore the petitioner is entitled to be advised to one of those vacancies so reported. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to advice the 49 vacancies already reported by Ext. P5 for training;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders in the matter appointing after completion of the training of those 49 candidates who are advised for training.
2. According to the learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission, the issue is covered by a Division Bench decision and a Single Bench decision following the Division Bench decision, which are produced by the petitioner as Exts.P2 and P3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in view of Ext. P2 decision itself.
3. I am not inclined to go into the contentions of the petitioner on merits, since, admittedly, as decided in Ext. P3 judgment, the list had expired as early as on 1.2.2008. The petitioner has filed this writ petition only on 3.8.2010. The petitioner has tried to explain the long delay of more than 2= years on the ground that the petitioner was aware of the facts regarding the vacancy position only now. That cannot be a sufficient explanation insofar as if the petitioner wanted, he could have obtained the information at the right time. Even otherwise, Ext. P2 judgment was rendered on 15.10.2008. The petitioner relies on the same for the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner was aware of the factual position when Ext. P2 judgment was rendered. Hence, I am of opinion that the petitioner has no explanation for the delay of 2= years in raising his claims. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on that ground.
