THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 13083 of 2010 16-06-2010 BETWEEN; G.Anuradha ...Petitioner vs. The Government of A.P represented by its Chief Secretary, Women’s Development Child Welfare Department, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 13083 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) This writ petition is directed against the common order of th learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 19-01-2010 i O.A.No.455 of 2009 and batch. The petitioner herein was the applicant i O.A.No.6133 of 2008 (part of batch of cases decided by the judgment o the Tribunal). O.A.No.6133 of 2008 was filed claiming seniority ove the 5th respondent herein on the ground that the petitioner wa ranked higher than the said respondent both in the initial appointmen category of Secondary Grade Teacher as well as in the promotiona category of B.Ed Assistant to which categories of posts the petitioner an the 5th respondent were appointed and promoted b proceedings dated 02-07-1984 and 07-11-1987 respectively. The learne Tribunal dismissed O.A.No.6133 of 2008 on the ground that th application was filed belatedly despite knowledge of the treatment of th 5th respondent as senior to the petitioner qua the seniority lists of the year 1998, 2002 and 2004 and for the additional reason that the petitioner faile to lodge any objections to the seniority lists nor chose to file applicatio before the Tribunal claiming seniority over the non-official respondents, i time. Reliance for the rejection of the O.A on the ground of laches wa placed by the Tribunal on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.S.Bajw Vs. State of Punjab and others (reported in (1998) 2 SCC 523]. As alread indicated, the petitioner and the 5th respondent were appointed a Secondary Grade Teachers and thereafter promoted as B.Ed Assistants b proceedings dated 02-07-1984 and 07-11-1987 respectively. In both thes proceedings, the name of the 5th respondent is recorded below the nam of the petitioner. Seniority lists were prepared and communicated to th concerned officers including the petitioner, in the years 1998, 2002, an 2004. The petitioner failed to lodge any objections or pursue th appropriate remedies for invalidation of the seniority lists either before th Tribunal or before this Court or other appropriate forum. In th circumstances, the principle of delay and laches applies to disentitle relie to the petitioner, as rightly observed by the Tribunal in the judgmen impugned. As pointed out by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court i Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi an Rajasthan and another([1]) even fundamental rights guaranteed unde Part III of the Constitution could be waived. Delay and laches illustrative o indolence of a litigant can be a fatal solvent of rights. As the law o limitation in a statue of repose the principle of laches is evolved as a administrative law principle to ensure equlibrium in the society and t ensure the avoidance of persistent uncertainty in social affairs, particularl in the case of public employment. It is strenuously contended by Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, the learne counsel for the petitioner that since the determination of the 5th respondent’s seniority over the petitioner is void, the petitioner ought t have been granted relief by the Tribunal. This contention is stated to b rejected. When, even a fundamental right could be eclipsed by applicatio of principle of waiver or the right to enforcement of a fundamental righ could be lost on account of delay and laches, the mere fact that an orde determining seniority is irregular or not inconformity with a Rule governing inter se seniority would not stand on a higher pedestal. Thi contention therefore though vigorously presented does not commen acceptance by this Court. On the aforesaid analysis, this court finds no infirmity in th judgment of the Tribunal dated 19-01-2010 in O.A.No.6133 of 2008 filed b the petitioner. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 16TH JUNE 2010. TSNR [1] AIR 1959 AC 149