CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 11201 OF 1999 1. INDRAJEET SINGH @ INDRAJEET PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BABLU SINGH, RESIDENT OF ROAD NO. 4, NORTH PATEL NAGAR, POLICE STATION- PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 2. YOGENDRA JHA SON OF SHIBDEO JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIKASHI, POST OFFICE- NIKASHI, POLICE STATION- KAMTAUL, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ------------------------------- Petitioners Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. THE COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, PATNA. 4. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (P & V), CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, PATNA 800001. 5. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (EAST), CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, PATNA 800001. --------------------------Respondents For The Petitioner :Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra, Advocate For The Respondent :Mr. Binay Kumar PandeyCGC) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL S.K. Katriar, J. & Kishore K. Mandal, J This writ petition is directed against the common order dated 16.08.1999(Annexure-5), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in the following cases: (i) In O.A. no. 86 of 1995 (Indrajeet Singh @ Indrjeet Prasad Singh versus The Union of India & Ors) and (ii) In O.A. no. 36 of 1995 Yogendra Jha versus The Union of India & Ors) Both the original applications have been rejected. In fact, the 2 Tribunal disposed of six original applications by the common order but we are concerned only with the aforesaid two original applications, and the remaining four original applications are not before us. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that petitioner no. 1 herein was initially appointed as L.D.C. on 25.5.1971, and was promoted to the post of Stenographer on 17.1.1973, in the Department of Central Excise and Customs. He was thereafter promoted as Inspector on 22.11.1978. He was ultimately promoted to the post of Superintendent (Group-B) in the Department of Central Excise and Customs. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, he superannuated from the services in the year 2010. Petitioner no. 1 preferred the aforesaid O.A. no. 86 of 1995, seeking a direction to prepone his promotion to the post of Superintendent to an earlier date. The same has been rejected by the impugned order along with analogous O.A. no. 36 of 1995. 3. Petitioner no. 2 herein was initially appointed as Stenographer on 28.7.1973, in the Department of Central Excise and Customs. Petitioner no. 2 was thereafter promoted to the post of Inspector w.e.f. 11.7.1980, and was ultimately promoted to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs in the year 2000. He superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.3.2009. He preferred the aforesaid O.A. no. 36 of 1995, for identical relief 3 which has been disposed of along with the original application preferred by petitioner no. 1 herein on identical grounds. 4. Before we proceed further, we must state that the petitioners herein had preferred their separate original applications before the learned Tribunal and, therefore, should have preferred separate writ petitions in this Court. However, we condone the mistake on the part of the two petitioners because the defect has been noticed at the stage of final disposal of the matter, and has remained pending before in Court for such an unduly long time. It would not be in the interest of justice to dismiss the case of one or both the writ petitions on this ground. The office should be careful in pointing out such defects. 5. The learned Tribunal has found that the petitioners have approached the learned Tribunal after a lapse of nearly 15 to 17 years. We entirely agree with the conclusion. Law is well settled that an aggrieved person must approach the Court before parallel rights are created, and allowed to be entrenched by lapse of time. In the present case, we do not find any worthwhile explanation in justification of the delay in approaching the court. We are convinced that the original applications were hit by gross laches, negligence and acquiescence. We equally agree with the second conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The posts meant to be filled up by direct recruitment remained vacant for quite sometime, and were filled up belatedly. The direct recruits were assigned seniority when the vacancies had occurred as a 4 result of which the present petitioners were displaced and moved/slipped down in the seniority list. We do not find fault with the same. We entirely agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Any interference in the matter will unsettle the settled state of affairs. 7. We do not find any merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Patna High Court The 30th March, 2010 NAFR/pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )