OF JUDECATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR : SHRI S.R. NAYAK,CJ & HON'BLE SATISH K. AGNIHOTR!, J. W,P,_No,1493,_of2000 Gopai Prasad Shrivas, S/o Shri Murtiras Shrivas, Aged about 44 years, Forester, (Forest Department) Resident of Shaktl Distt. Janjgeer, Champa, (MP,) s^^^&s^^^^^^.^ -^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. State of IVEadhya Pradesh, Tnrough Secretary Forest Depatt. Bhopat (M.P.) 2. Conser^ator of Forest, Circle Bastar (M.P.) 3. Conservator of Forest, Circle Biiaspur (M.P.) 4. Ghanshyam Singh Thakur, Deputy Ranger, Forest Circle Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Present: -Shri MX. Baig, learned counsel for the petltioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, learned Dy. G.A. for the State. ORAL ORDER {Passed on 6" October, 2006) The following orat order of the Court was passed by S.R. NAYAK, CJ . The petitioner by instituting O.A. No. 315 of 1999 in the year1999 before the iViadhya Pradesh Stat®Adminlstrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (for short "the Trsbunal") sought promotion to the post of Deputy w.e.f. 24-11-1987 the on whlch his immediate junlor was promoted. The Tribunai has rejected the appllcation on the ground of !lmi,tatlon, delay and latches wlthout aolng into the merits of the matter. The for our consideratlon is v^fhether the Tribunal is justified In ^"—- -2 ^ rejecting the appEication in limine on the ground of delay and Istehes and belng barred by Jimitatlon. We are of the considered opinion that what has been done by the Tribunat, En the and cJrcumstances of the case; is fui!y justEfied and there is no warrant for our interference. (2) !t is wel! that In the matters of recruitment and promotion, the are the air their grievance without muqh of tlme. if the Tribunai or the Court vv'ere to review an adminjstratjve action taken in theyear 1987 promoting th®petitioner's junEor to th@ of Deputy Ranger and upset th-e promotion, It wouid unsett!e the settied matter. The only submission made by ieamed counsei for the petjtloner In the course of arguments was that his client repres.entations to the department to grant him promotlon,, Even assuming that such representations made to the-department, would not be a justEfication for the Court or the TribunaE to grant reEle-f to the petitioner at this distance of tlme upsetting the matters, and such an action wouid not be conducive to smooth adminlstration of thedepartment. It would chaos. Funhertnore, it to be notlced that maklng to an authon'ty Is not a justifjcation for an aggrieved to over his right and for not taking for redressa! of his grievances before the jurisdictional Court or the Judlcial Forum, as the may be. Looklng from any angie, v^e do not find any reason to any exception to the view taken by the Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. -—-——- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^^