Anil Kum ar v. St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot hers) in by This Court

Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocat e, assist ed by Mohd. Shafy, Advocat e for t he pet it ioner.

2. Mr. Narayan Dut t , St anding Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand.

3. Pet it ioner was appoint ed as Lekhpal in Dist rict Haridwar in 1992. According t o him , in t he earlier seniorit y list , issued from t im e t o t im e, he was placed at t he correct place wit h reference t o t he dat e of his subst ant ive appoint m ent , however, in t he seniorit y list issued in t he year 2019, his set t led seniorit y posit ion was dist urbed and he was placed below persons, who were appoint ed aft er him as Lekhpal. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for 4. t he pet it ioner point s out t hat t he seniorit y list issued in 2019 was challenged by t he pet it ioner by filing a wr it pet it ion, which vide order dat ed was disposed of, 8.10.2020 wit h t he com pet ent aut horit y t o t ake decision on pet it ioner’s obj ect ion. He subm it s t hat t he obj ect ion filed by pet it ioner was rej ect ed and pet it ioner’s seniorit y was wrongly fixed, below his j unior. t he direct ion t o

5. I n t his writ pet it ion, pet it ioner has challenged t he order of prom ot ion dat ed 10.10.2025, issued by Dist rict Magist rat e, Haridwar, whereby respondent no. 5 has been prom ot ed as Naib Tehsildar on ad- hoc basis. Learned St at e Counsel point s out 6. t hat respondent no. 5 is senior t o t he pet it ioner as per seniorit y list finalised in 2019.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat pet it ioner is challenging t he seniorit y list of 2019, also in t his writ pet it ion.

8. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat seniorit y list cannot be challenged aft er m ore t han six years of it s issuance. He t hat since ot her m em bers of subm it s service acquired a definit e posit ion, based on a seniorit y list , t herefore, challenge, if any t o t he seniorit y list , has t o be m ade wit hin a reasonable t im e. He relies upon j udgm ent dat ed 1.8.2023, rendered by Division Bench of t his Court in Special Appeal No. 76 of 2023 ( Anil Kum ar Vs. St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot hers) . This Court finds subst ance

9. t he subm ission m ade learned St at e Counsel. Challenge t o t he seniorit y list has t o be m ade wit hin a reasonable period, as held by 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. Paragraph no. 18 of t he said j udgm ent is reproduced below: - “ 18. I t seem s t o m e, however, 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 w it h a direct ion or order or writ in t he nat ure of m andam us, cert iorari and prohibit ion. Bear ing in m ind t he hist ory of t hese writ s I cannot believe 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 r ight at t he inst ance of a person, who had wit hout any reasonable explanat ion slept over his r ight s for 6 or 12 years. The hist ory of t hese writ s bot h in England and t he U.S.A. convinces m e t hat t he underlying t o provide an idea of t he Const it ut ion was t here t he case t he St at e had expedit ious and aut horit at ive rem edy against t he inroads of t he St at e. I f a claim is barred under t he Lim it at ion Act , unless t here are except ional circum st ances, pr im 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 barred under t he I ndian Lim it at ion Act , it m ay not be ent ert ained by t his Court if on t he fact s is unreasonable delay. For t aken possession of inst ance, propert y under a law alleged t o be void, and if a pet it ioner com es t o t his Court 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 delay, unless t here is som e reasonable explanat ion. The fact t hat a suit for possession of land w ould 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 which delay should be explained. I favour one year because t his Court should not be light ly, and com pet ent approached legal advice t aken and pros and cons carefully should be weighed before com ing t o t his Court . I t is com m on knowledge t hat appeals and represent at ions t o t he higher aut hor it ies t ake t im e; t im e spent in pursuing t hese rem edies m ay not be excluded under t he Lim it at ion Act , but it m ay ordinar ily be t aken as a good explanat ion for t he delay.”

10. I n t he present case, t he seniorit y list was finalised in 2019, t hus, t he challenge t o t he seniorit y list is now being m ade by t he pet it ioner aft er six years. Such belat ed challenge cannot be ent ert ained.

11. Accordingly, t he relief as claim ed by pet it ioner, cannot be grant ed.

12. The writ pet it ion dism issed. No order as t o cost s. fails and

18.11.2025 ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb904 6f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103 819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB 21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA