submits that issue involved in this writ petition is covered by judgment dated 27.03.2017 rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPSS No. 1955 of 2015, which was affirmed by Division Bench of this Court in SPA No. 279 of 2018, vide judgment dated 30.08.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the subsequent judgments rendered by learned Singe Judge of this Court in which reliance was placed upon aforesaid Division Bench judgment. 7. Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned State Counsel, however, submits that petitioner is a fence sitter; he should have approached this Court, which he has now sought, in 2014 when the Institution where he was serving, was included in the grant-in-aid list; he should have filed writ petition when other similarly situate persons had filed writ petitions in 201516; however, petitioner slept over the matter all through, though he completed age of superannuation in July, 2020, and ultimately, retired from service by availing the benefit of Academic Session, on 31.03.2021 and now more than five years after his retirement, petitioner has approached this Court. He further submits that there is inordinate and unexplained delay of more than ten years in the writ petition, therefore, the relief, as claimed, cannot be granted at this belated stage to the petitioner. 8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Admittedly, petitioner slept over his right all through, while writ petitions filed by other similarly situate persons were being decided. There is no explanation for the delay and laches caused by petitioner in filing the writ
