SBCWP No.727/01. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.727/2001. Deep Chand Verma Vs. The Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur & Ors. Date of order : November 26, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sajid Ali for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Paliwal for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who retired from the services of the respondents as Assistant Town Planner on 31/3/2001. Writ petition was filed in December 2000 when petitioner was on the verge of retirement with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Deputy town Planner against certain vacancies which had been newly created on 28/10/1992. 2) Shri Sajid Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondents have illegally SBCWP No.727/01. 2 filled up that vacancies by taking another Town Planner on deputation from a different department and thereby defeated the just claim of the petitioner. It was argued that had the petitioner been promoted against that post in 1992-93, he would have been further entitled for promotion on the post of Senior Town Planner in the year 1996 because at that time a further vacancy of that post became available. Second claim of the petitioner is based on the contingency that he was granted first promotion on the post of Deputy Town Planner. 3) Respondents have come out with the plea that post of Deputy Town Planner which had been newly created w.e.f. 28/10/1992 was itself abolished on 30/9/1994 therefore case of the petitioner cannot be considered. Even otherwise, petitioner had not completed requisite period of 5 years for notional promotion on the post of Deputy Town Planner on that date and before he could become eligible, the post was abolished. 4) Apart from the merit of the case, there is delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court which is apparent from the face of the record. If the petitioner was seriously aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion when filling the post by deputation or abolishing the said post, which events SBCWP No.727/01. 3 had taken place in 1992, 1993 and 1994 only, it was required of him to timely approach this court. 5) A litigant who is not vigilant about his right, cannot complain of legal injury and the courts in this situation, cannot come to the rescue to such a litigant. Be that as it may, on both the counts, I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil