THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No. 15207 of 1999 Dated: 9-3-2010 Between: S.Sree Rama Reddy and another …Petitioners and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents. Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This writ petition, by two senior citizens and retired Police Officers, is directed against the order dated 20-11-1998 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in R.P.No. 2005 of 1989. By the order impugned, the learned Tribunal ordered that if the cases of the petitioners for notional promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police based on the revision of seniority and the claim for further promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police, had not been considered so far, the respondents should consider their claims for those reliefs on merits, in accordance with the rules and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously. The R.P before the Tribunal was filed, as is apparent, in 1989. R.P.No. 2005 of 1989 was filed for sought a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 for inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the 1959 ‘C’ list of Inspectors, above the 4th respondent as per Rule 2 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules and in accordance with the directions issued in Tr.W.Ps. 8 and 51 of 1976 vide judgment dated 22-7- 1977 (of the Tribunal) and to grant all consequential benefits including notional promotions, arrears of pay and re-fixation of their pensions etc. The application before the Tribunal was filed after the petitioners had retired on superannuation and were aged over 60 years, seeking inclusion of their names in the 1959 ‘C’ list, three decades after arisal of the cause of action. According to the petitioners, they were appointed as Sub-Inspectors on 1-3-1950 and 5-10-1949 respectively and were originally included in the ‘C’ list of Sub-Inspectors fit to act as Inspectors for the years 1965 and 1966; were brought on to ‘B’ list as Inspectors with effect from 21-1-1966 and 26-10- 1968 respectively and had retired as Inspectors of Police on attaining the age of superannuation. It is the further case of the petitioners, as presented before the Tribunal, that they were entitled to be included in the ‘C’ list for promotion as Inspectors of Police on account of their superior performance over others including the 4th respondent who was included in the 1959 ‘C’ list. The Rules warrant inclusion in the ‘C’ list basing on their seniority, is the claim of the petitioners. The State in its counter asserted before the Tribunal that the petitioner could not secure the required number of marks and therefore, their names were not considered for inclusion in the ‘C’ list in the year 1959; as the 4th respondent became senior to them his name was included in the ‘C’ list of 1959. The names of the petitioners were included in the subsequent year ‘C’ list, namely 1960. While the petitioners retired as Deputy Superintendent of Police, eventually the 4th respondent was promoted further as Additional Superintendent of Police. On the basis of the aforestated competing assertions, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A., as it did. In the papers placed for the perusal of this Court, annexed to this writ petition, is an administrative note prepared by the 2nd respondent, which suggests that no ‘C’ list was issued in 1959. In the counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal on behalf of the State, it is stated that the personal files and marks list for the year 1959 are not available in the office of the 2nd respondent or in the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool range. As the writ petition was filed nearly three decades after the arisal of the grievances of the petitioners, the Rules for destruction of official records, in particular seniority lists or marks lists would operate and the records are not available. The petitioners had approached the Tribunal with inordinate delay and their claims are barred by laches. Laches and delay is a potent solvent of all rights. In the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 15-12-1988 revising the ‘C’ lists, the name of the petitioners is reflected in the 1960 ‘C’ list of Sub- Inspectors eligible for promotion as Inspectors. The 1st petitioner’s name is at Sl.No.6 and the 2nd petitioner’s name at Sl.No. 14, with notional dates of promotion as Inspectors assigned as 28-3-1963 for both the petitioners. Whether the action of the State in declining inclusion of the names of the petitioners in 1959 ‘C’ list is unsustainable on merits, there is no way of verifying now, as the records have been lost on account of nearly three decades delay by the petitioners in seeking relief before the Tribunal. On the aforesaid analysis, we find no cause for granting relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 9th March, 2010. GRR