High Court · 2025

Judgment

( p e r H o n ’ b l e Ju st i c e Sr i M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i )

1. This is Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion I A No.1 of 2021 filed by t he appellant s for condoning t he delay of 742 days in filing t his appeal.

2. Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion, unopposed, is allowed. Delay is, accordingly, condoned.

3. This int ra- court appeal is direct ed against t he j udgm ent / final order dat ed 09.03.2018 rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No.1782 of

2012. I m pugned j udgm ent is reproduced below: -

“ Mr. M.C. Pant , Advocat e, present for t he 1 pet it ioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar , St anding Counsel for t he St at e. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocat e for t he r espondent no.5. The pet it ioners part icipat ed in t he select ion process. They wer e offered appoint m ent t o t he post of Junior Engineer in t he y ear 2004. Present pet it ion has been filed seeking a writ of m andam us dir ect ing t he r espondent s t o allow t he benefit s of 10 addit ional m arks t o t he pet it ioner s in t erm s of t he r ules of 2003 and furt her t o dir ect t he respondent s t o r edraw t he m erit list and aft er com plet ion of t his ex er cise, t he prom ot ional exer cise be carried out . The pet it ioners have slept over t heir right s w.e.f. 2004 t o 2013. I t is set t led law by now by t heir Lor dships of Hon’ble Apex Court t hat prom ot ion and seniorit y list m ust be challenged wit hin a period of six m ont hs t o one year. Their Lordships have furt her held t hat t he v est ed right s acquired by a person in t he int ervening period cannot be dist ur bed at a belat ed st age. The pet it ioners have not even added any per son likely t o be affect ed. There is no lim it at ion as far as w rit j urisdict ion is concer ned but t he delay and laches cannot be overlooked by t he Court . Accordingly, t her e is no m erit in t he pet it ion and t he sam e is hereby dism issed. Pending applicat ion, if any , st ands disposed of.”

4. Appellant part icipat ed in a select ion 2 appoint m ent as Junior Engineer, pursuant t o an advert isem ent issued in 2001. Upon select ion, he was appoint ed as Junior Engineer in 2004. Based on his score of m arks t he select ion, appellant was assigned a part icular seniorit y posit ion am ongst Junior Engineers appoint ed in 2004. The next prom ot ional post available t o t he pet it ioner is Assist ant Engineer and exercise prom ot ion as Assist ant Engineer was init iat ed in 2011, however, appellant was not considered for prom ot ion as he was down below in seniorit y list .

5. He t hen filed Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No.1782 of 2012 wit h t he cont ent ion t hat t he Recruit m ent Rules applicable for t he post of Junior Engineer were am ended in 2003; t he am ended Rules provided for 10 addit ional m arks t o persons who had served as Apprent ice; appellant had served as Apprent ice t he required lengt h of service, t herefore, he was ent it led for 10 addit ional m arks which were not given t o him ; he, t hus, prayed t hat he be given 10 addit ional m arks which will im prove his seniorit y ranking in t he cadre of Junior Engineers.

6. The relief sought by t he appellant in t he said writ pet it ion is ext ract ed below: - “ I ssue a writ , r ule or direct ion in t he nat ure of m andam us direct ing t he r espondent s t o allow t he 3 benefit s of 10 addit ional m arks t o t he pet it ioner s in t erm s of t he r ules of 2003 and furt her t o dir ect t he respondent s t o r edraw t he m erit list and aft er com plet ion of t his ex er cise, t he prom ot ional exer cise be carried out .”

7. The writ pet it ion was dism issed by learned Single Judge by holding t hat seniorit y disput e m ust be raised wit hin a reasonable t im e and no one should be perm it t ed t o rake up old/ st ale claim s regarding seniorit y as it dist urbs t he right s acquired by ot her m em bers of service. Anot her ground for dism issing t he writ pet it ion was t hat t he persons whose seniorit y would be dist urbed by grant of relief in favour of t he appellant were not before t he writ court and t hey are ent it led t o opport unit y of hearing before t aking any decision which m ay affect t heir seniorit y.

8. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat prom ot ion exercise culm inat ed in t he year 2013, and in t he orders of prom ot ion, whereby ot her persons were prom ot ed as Assist ant Engineer, it was m ent ioned t hat t heir prom ot ion shall abide by out com e of Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No.1782 of 2012, which according t o learned counsel for t he appellant , const it ut es sufficient cause for condoning t he delay and t he writ pet it ion could not have been dism issed by learned Single Judge on t he ground of 4 delay and laches.

9. We are not im pressed by t he said subm ission m ade by learned counsel for t he appellant .

10. I t is set t led posit ion in law t hat set t led seniorit y list cannot be unset t led at t he inst ance of a person who challenges t he list aft er inordinat e delay. This Court in Sp e ci a l A p p e a l N o .7 6 o f 2 0 2 3 “ A n i l K u m a r v s. St a t e o f Ut t a r a k h a n d & Ot h e r s, decided on 01.08.2023, has held as under: - “ 5. Lear ned Single Judge has consider ed t he issue of delay and laches in great det ail. I t is held t hat set t led seniorit y list cannot be unset t led at t he inst ance of a per son w ho challenges t he list aft er inordinat e delay. The view t aken by learned Single Judge is in conform it y wit h t he law of t he land. 6. A Const it ut ion Bench of Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Tilokchand Mot ichand & ot hers Vs. H.B. Munshi, report ed in ( 1969) 1 SCC 110 has m ade t he following observat ions on t he quest ion of delay and laches in paragraph no.18 of t he said j udgm ent , w hich is reproduced below: “ 18. I t seem s t o m e, how ever, t hat t he above solut ion is not quit e appropriat e for pet it ions under Art icle 32. A delay of 12 years or 6 years would m ake a st range bed- fellow wit h a direct ion or order or writ in t he nat ure of m andam us, cert iorari and prohibit ion. Bearing in m ind t he hist ory of t hese w rit s I cannot believ e t hat t he Const it uent Assem bly had t he int ent ion t hat five Judges of t his Court should sit t oget her t o enforce a fundam ent al right at t he inst ance of a per son, w ho had wit hout any reasonable explanat ion slept over his right s for 6 or 12 year s. The hist ory of t hese writ s bot h in England and t he U.S.A. convinces m e t hat 5 is barr ed under t he underlying idea of t he Const it ut ion was t o provide an ex pedit ious and aut horit at ive rem edy against t he inroads of t he St at e. I f a t he Lim it at ion Act , unless t here ar e except ional circum st ances, prim a facie it is a st ale claim and should not be ent ert ained by t his Court . But even if it is not barr ed under t he I ndian Lim it at ion Act , it m ay not be ent ert ained by t his Cour t if on t he fact s of t he case t her e is unreasonable delay. For inst ance, if t he St at e had t aken possession of propert y under a law alleged t o be void, and if a pet it ioner com es t o t his Cour t 11 years aft er t he possession was t aken by t he St at e, I would dism iss t he pet it ion on t he ground of reasonable delay, unless explanat ion. The fact t hat a suit for possession of land would st ill be in t im e would not be relevant at all. I t is difficult t o lay down a precise period beyond w hich delay should be t his explained. Court should not be approached light ly, and com pet ent legal advice should be t aken and pros and cons car efully weighed before com ing t o t his Court . I t is com m on knowledge t hat appeals and r epresent at ions t he higher aut horit ies t ake t im e; t im e spent in pursuing t hese r em edies m ay not be ex cluded under t he Lim it at ion Act , but it m ay ordinarily be t aken as a good explanat ion for t he delay.” favour one y ear because is som e t her e t o I The afor esaid view was reit erat ed by anot her 7. Const it ut ion Bench of Hon’ble Supr em e Court in t he case of Ram chandra Shankar, Deodhar & ot her s Vs. St at e of Maharasht ra & ot her s, r eport ed in ( 1974) 1 SCC 317, wher e it was observed t hat t he pr inciple on which t he Court proceeds in refusing r elief t o t he pet it ioner on ground of laches or delay is t hat t he right s w hich have accr ued t o ot hers by reason of t he delay in filing t he pet it ion should not be allowed t o be dist ur bed unless t her e is r easonable ex planat ion for t he delay.” 6

11. Even ot herwise also, t he grievance raised by t he appellant before t he learned Single Judge was aft er inordinat e delay of m ore t han a decade. Appellant had claim ed t hat he was ent it led t o 10 addit ional m arks for apprent iceship, which undergone before appoint m ent as Junior Engineer. This issue ought t o have been raised by t he appellant while t he select ion process was on or soon aft er his appoint m ent as Junior Engineer. Appellant st aked claim for 10 addit ional m arks aft er rendering m ore t han 08 years of service as Junior Engineer. Grant of addit ional m arks t o t he appellant would have result ed in alt ering appellant ’s seniorit y posit ion qua his bat chm at es. Thus, appellant was t rying t o rake up a seniorit y disput e 08 years aft er his appoint m ent , while t he int er se seniorit y bet ween t he appellant and ot her m em bers of service was finalized long back and in t he absence of any challenge by t he appellant at a proper st age, t heir int er se seniorit y becam e final.

12. Ot her m em bers of service whose seniorit y posit ion was likely t o be dist urbed by t he decision t aken in t he writ pet it ion filed by t he appellant were necessary part y t o t he writ pet it ion and wit hout hearing such ot her m em bers of service, no relief could have been grant ed t o t he appellant . I n such view of t he m at t er, learned Single 7 Judge was j ust ified in dism issing t he writ pet it ion. We do not find any good ground t o int erfere in t he m at t er.

13. Accordingly, t he appeals fails and is hereby dism issed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 14.07.2025 14.07.2025 Raj ni RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3701a9 ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4FC80D4 557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN 8