CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.822 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: July 31, 2009 Jai Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not sent on Lower School Course in time and hence could not be promoted from the date his juniors were so promoted. He accordingly seeks direction for his promotion. The petitioner was, however, put on list C-1 in the year 1981 and was confirmed as Head Constable on 31.1.1986. On 30.10.1989, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector. The petitioner was also detailed on Intermediate CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.822 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: Course in the year 1991 on the basis of a writ petition filed by him. Thereafter, he was put on list D and promoted as regular ASI on 15.8.1992. The petitioner was thereafter put on list E and promoted as Sub Inspector on 17.11.1999. He was confirmed as such on 31.1.2005. With effect from 8.9.2006, he was promoted as Inspector. He now makes a grievance that the seniority list was issued by Ambala Range and Rohtak Range in the year 1998. ASI Onkar Singh, who was junior to the petitioner, appears to have submitted representation against the seniority list on 31.8.1999. The petitioner subsequently appears to have submitted his representation but has not disclosed the date thereof. However, he submitted another representation in the year 2001 against the inaction on his earlier representation. This representation was rejected on 19.3.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a statutory appeal, which is again undated. Grievance is that this was also rejected on 13.3.2002. The petitioner followed it by submitting a mercy appeal, which was rejected on 20.1.2005 on the ground that there is no provision for filing such appeal. In January 2008, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. From the facts, as narrated, it is clear that the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 19.3.2001 (Annexure P-5), 13.3.2002 (Annexure P-7) and 20.1.2005 (Annexure P-8). The mercy petition of the petitioner was rejected through Annexure P-8 being not maintainable. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the orders, which were passed about 7 years prior to the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner has virtually no reason to explain this inordinate delay. If some of the juniors of the petitioner were so promoted in the year CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.822 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: 1999 or subsequent thereto, he was to make a grievance in this regard immediately thereafter. The seniority list was also circulated in the year 1998. In this background, the grievance that some of the juniors of the petitioner were promoted would be in the knowledge of the petitioner. The respondents, on the other hand, would point out that the petitioner was transferred to Rohtak Range when the same was created. The seniority of the petitioner accordingly was considered in this Range. It is accordingly pleaded that the petitioner got all the promotions in the Rohtak Range and as such can not claim for being deputed for Intermediate Course etc. as per the seniority in the Ambala Range. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the view that the claim made in the present writ petition suffers from delay and latches. The petitioner has remained silent and did not agitate his right for a considerable period. His representation/statutory appeal was rejected in the year 2002. Still, he took 6 years to file the present petition. In between, he made an approach, which was declined in the year 2005 on the ground that mercy petition was not maintainable. The petitioner can not be heard at this belated stage, when he has slept over his rights for so long. The petition, thus, clearly suffers from delay and latches and dismissed on that ground. July 31, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE