IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32092 of 1998 Between: 1 N. Krishnaiah, S/o Seshaiah, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampally Adilabad District. 2 K. Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o Shanker Reddy Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Godavarikhani, Kraimnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The chairman & Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 Dr. K.V. Narappa, (Exploration Division), Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 3 C. Raghava Reddy, Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Bellampally Adaliabad. 4 Dr. B.V. Naidu, Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Bellampally Adaliabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:SMT.BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI Counsel for Respondent No.1:Ms. V.UMA DEVI Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: MR. N.SUBBA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to restore the seniority of the petitioners by reducing the training period to one year and place them above the direct recruitees i.e. respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioners joined as Geologists (Trainees) in Singareni Collieries Company Limited (for short ‘the Company’) in December, 1980. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Company on 04.08.1981, respondent Nos.2 to 4 applied for the post of Geologists (Trainees). However, having regard to their superior qualification, they were directly appointed as Geologists in 1982. The grievance of the petitioners is that while in their case, they were required to undergo two (2) years training period, which did not qualify for seniority, in the case of respondent Nos.2 to 4, they were given the benefit of the entire service, right from the date of their appointment. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Company and respondent Nos.2 to 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Company, it is inter alia stated that the petitioners joined the Company as Geologists (Trainees) with effect from 14.11.1980 and 04.12.1980 respectively; that according to the terms and conditions of their appointment as Geologists (Trainees), they had to undergo training for appointment of Geologists (E.II) and that accordingly, on satisfactory completion of training, the petitioners were appointed as Geologists (E.II) with effect from 14.11.1982 and 04.12.1982 respectively vide office order, dated 02.11.1982. It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions of their appointment as Geologists (E.II), they would be on probation for one year from the date of joining as Geologists and are confirmed in their posts on earning satisfactory reports about their work, attendance and conduct and that the petitioners were accordingly confirmed in their posts with effect from 14.11.1983 and 04.12.1983 respectively vide office order, dated 10.01.1984. It is further stated that while the petitioners were continuing as Trainees, another notification was issued through advertisement, dated 04.08.1981 to fill up the existing vacancies of Geologists (Trainees); that basing on the academic qualifications, specialization in subjects, experience and performance in the interview, 22 candidates including respondent Nos.2 and 3 were selected as per merit and that on the recommendation made by the selection committee, they were appointed as Geologists in regular scales of pay (E.II Grade) in view of their having research experience. It is also stated that the selection committee also selected respondent No.4 and 4 others and placed them in the panel and that subsequently, in May, 1982, respondent No.4 was appointed against one of the two vacancies considering the fact that he was awarded Ph.D and having research experience. From the above facts, the Company brought out a distinction between the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 4. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners and two others submitted a joint representation claiming seniority over respondent Nos.2 to 4 in October, 1984 and April, 1987. As the Company did not see any merit in their claim, the said representation was not considered and that in April, 1988 and July, 1991, the petitioners were promoted as Senior Geologists (E.III) and Deputy Superintending Geologists (E.IV) respectively and later on, they were promoted as Superintending Geologists (E.V) with effect from 01.06.1997 and were continued in the same post. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, it is averred, were promoted to E.IV and E.V Grades with effect from the dates on which the petitioners were promoted and respondent No.2 was promoted to E.V Grade with effect from 01.09.1995. From these facts, it is pleaded that the petitioners and the respondents were however promoted to higher grades almost at the same time, while maintaining inter se seniority between them. The answering respondent also stated that after making joint representation in October, 1984, the petitioners once again made a further representation in 1987 and they have kept quiet for 10 years and that in pursuance of order, dated 18.11.1998 passed in this writ petition, the petitioners’ representations were considered and rejected. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the petitioners were aware of the fact that respondent Nos.2 to 4 were given the benefit of the entire service without excluding any period towards training. Though they made representations in 1984 and 1987, they did not pursue them to their logical end and having kept quiet for about 15 years, they approached this Court in 1998 by way of this writ petition. The petitioners are thus, not vigilant in availing the appropriate legal remedy at appropriate time. The law is well settled that the persons, who are lethargic and sleep over their rights, are not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at their leisure. ( S e e State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai[1], Trilokchand & Motichand v. M.B.Munshi[2] and Rabindranath v. Union of India[3]) Another reason, which dissuades me from interfering at this length of time is, respondent No.1 contended that though the Company issued the advertisement for recruiting Geologists (Trainees), it has taken the stand that considering the superior educational qualifications and the research experience of respondent Nos.2 to 4, it appointed them as Geologists and not as Geologists (Trainees). Whether such an action is sustainable in law or not cannot be gone into at this length of time, more so, when the appointments of respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not under challenge. Therefore, the fact remains that while the petitioners were appointed as Geologists (Trainees), respondent Nos.2 to 4 were appointed as Geologists in respect of whom, no training period is prescribed. In view of this fundamental difference between the posts to which the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 4 were appointed, the petitioners cannot claim parity with respondent Nos.2 to 4. For the above-mentioned reasons, the petitioners failed to make out any case for granting relief in their favour and the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.1709 of 1999 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th DECEMBER, 2008. kvni [1] AIR 1964 SC 1006 [2] (1969) 1 SCC 110 [3] AIR 1970 SC 470