IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.165 of 2010 1. Vishwanath Prasad Shahi S/O Late Vikrama Shahi R/O Vill- Paterha, P.O-Paterha, P.S- Maharajganj, Distt- Siwan, Retired While Working As Jan Sewak In Gram Panchayat Raj Satjora, Block- Daraunda, Distt- Siwan Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Agricultural Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Agricultural, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Siwan 5. The District Agricultural Officer, Siwan 6. The Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer, Siwan 7. The Block Development Officer, Daraunda, Distt- Siwan ----------- 4. 25.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated in the year 1998. He seeks the relief to be considered for promotion from the post of Jan Sewak to that of an Agricultural Inspector/Block Agriculture Officer or an equivalent post against the 25% quota for promotional vacancies for those possessing the qualification of B.Sc. Agriculture Science. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that others similarly situated have been granted promotion. He relies on a judgment in 2008(4) PLJR 593 (Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) to submit that the writ application could not be said to be barred by delay merely because it may have been filed in the year 2010. 2 The respondents have taken a specific objection in their counter affidavit that the writ application was barred by gross, inordinate and unexplained delay. There is no statement in the writ application why the petitioner did not pursue his remedies while in service. The desperate attempt made in Paragraph-17 is a bald attempt but of no avail to the petitioner. Those like him promoted are stated to have been done so in 1987 itself while he in service as mentioned in Paragraph-13 of the pleadings. In the case of Amrendra Kumar Singh (supra) relied upon, this Court was not considering the aspect of delay but the failure to provide time bound promotion within the stipulated period holding that it was obligatory for the respondents to do so. In service matters delay is very vital. Any belated claim for promotion has a cascading effect. If the petitioner’s claim is entertained today it will first require a re-structuring of the entire seniority list commencing from the date that he claims promotion. That is unrealistic and the Court declines to pass any such orders. A time bound 3 promotion does not affect third party rights at all. The writ application is held to be barred by gross and inordinate delay. It is dismissed on that ground. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)