1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4651/2007 SK Kulshreshtha vs Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Jodhpur & Ors DATE OF ORDER : - 4.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Mahesh Bora, for the petitioner. Mr. MS Singhvi ] Mr. Kuleep Mathur ], for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved because he was denied promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer when junior to him has been promoted vide order dated 8th Oct., 2002 (Annex.2). The petitioner also challenged the seniority list issued in the year 2004 onwards. According to the petitioner his name in the tentative seniority list issued on 21st June, 2001 was at S.No.10 and the person junior to him having their seniority no.12, 13 and 14 have been given promotion vide order Annex.P/2 dated 8.10.2002. The petitioner's further contention is that Shri Bhuvnesh Chandra Mathur should have been given promotion in the quota of merit-cum-seniority and there is 2 admission of the respondents that in fact, there were six vacancies and one of the vacancies was for reserved category. In the seniority quota, the petitioner was entitled to get promotion but the same has been denied to the petitioner and the persons named at S.No.12,13 and 14 namely S/Sh. B.D. Maloo, M.C. Nahta and M.S. Fageria have been given promotion in the quota of seniority-cum- merit. The respondents have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence as the petitioner has challenged the promotion of the year 2002 by filing the writ petition in the year 2007, that too after petitioner himself has accepted the position and he took the benefit of the ad hoc promotion given to him by the order dated 31.12.2002 to the post of Superintending Engineer and which is proved from the copy of the order Annex.P/3 submitted by the petitioner himself. Not only this, even the petitioner has accepted the tentative seniority list wherein it is clearly mentioned that his place in the seniority list is at S.No.13 and he has already been promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Superintending Engineer. Then the petitioner was 3 given regular promotion by order dated 13.5.2004 (Annex.P/6) and thereafter, the petitioner has appraoched this Court to challenge the promotion given in the year 2002 by filing the writ petition in the year 2007. According to learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Bhuvnesh Chandra Mathur has already retired after getting further promotion and he has retired from the post of Chief Engineer. It is also submitted that writ petition filed after such a delay deserves to be dismissed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1976 (1) SLR 53 as as well as on the ground that the petitioner has accepted the promotion given to him without challenging the promotion from which he was adversely affected. Learned counsel Shri Kuldeep Mathur also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of P.S. Gopinathan Vs. State of Karala & Ors reported in (2008) 7 SCC 70 and also relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of B.S. Bajwa & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (1998) 2 SCC 523 and submitted that the writ petition of the petitioner deserves to be 4 dismissed on the ground of laches and delay as well as on the ground of acquiescence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner approached the respondents by making representation and it was the duty of the respondent to respond his representation, but they did not respond to that representation of the petitioner, therefore, the representation remained pending with the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court when the petitioner failed to get the relief from the respondents. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. Whatever contention of the petitioner may be, but the fact remains is that the promotion order was passed in the year 2002 and in the same year, the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Superintending Engineer and that promotion was accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the tentative seniority list issued wherein he was shown as promoted on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted regularly vide order dated 13th May, 2004 and that promotion has already been accepted by the petitioner 5 and, thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court after almost three years to challenge the promotion order dated 8th Oct., 2002. In the fact situation and in the light of the decision referred above, the petitioner's writ petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-