§§§m§§§.§%%v §§@ HIGH CGURT OF C‘HHATTiSGARi-i : EILA3PUR WRIT PETiTiGN {5) N0.3?61i26\’35 PETETEGNER Shiv Kumar Sawarkar 1. I Véi’SUS RE3PONDENTS State of Chh-atiisgarh anti 3 othérs Sinqtie Bench: Hoti’bié Shri Manim‘ra fviohaii Si‘urWastava. J. Preserit: - Shri S.K.Th0mas, counse§ for the peti‘nianer. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advcmte for the umtwiresyanvgms Q-Lal-n’ n r! £- Roi i ’3 ‘. and 3. §§AL §R5§R (Passed on 2§m 63y of Aprii, 261 ii) Aggrieved‘ by promotioru af his junior, rés‘pcmdent No.4, petifioner ms mea‘ m nus petiuorx g: assaiiing hi$ superCéS$icn and haS prayéd for gram of promotion fi‘om ihe ciate the junior has been promoteo‘ and aioo fof oonsequeni seniority. n 4. ‘ CaSe of the oetitionor is ihat iii the cacife of Lower Sivision Cierk, petitiorler is senior to. reeporio‘errt No.4 ao iS refieoteci from cietaiio iodioateti in ' Anoexure A—i. Grievance of the petitioner is that iris junior was promoted or: the post of upper Division Cierk anci the petitioner was ignoreo. it is submitted that x the action of responoients in promoting the junior and ignoring oiairn of tire petitioner is an action of nigh handed victimization and 'no*tiie discrimination under Alticie i4 and i6 of the Constitution of India. h a. F‘ oubrnission of iearned counsei for respondents is that the case of petitioner was oonsidered f‘r promotion. Considering the records of sen/ice and u- mat the petitioner was given an adverse rentafks in his ACR for the year 'ié‘ig'i- ‘92, petitioner was not found tit for promotion. it is aiso submitted that otherwise \ b) aisa this tition is iiabie io be ciismi$sed 0n account of deiay and iatWes in a3 much the or6er of promotion was issued on 11’2/94 hy whichrespondént No.4 was promoieo‘, whi gave peiiti'oner causo of action, yetgpaiiiion has been fiied afer aimost 7 years. After hi3 supercession in i994 etifer did not take ieo my ana w hum oe th yaw tutnoun ir t po-l ourse to foeo avbie unr e and iong — e a répresen was oniy on 31050 and theer t pion was Ida e. 4. in the petition, li that ita been smted tay the petitioner is that a person ' junior t him e been promoted, therefore his uperceseion is iitegai as he being senior was entitied to oe promod. What has hee stated in the return is that an adverse remark was recorded in the ACR of the petitioner fo e year $9132 h 2 as not been disputed. From the communication dated 21’031’94 (Annexure R41) nieo' aiong with rtrn of reepondent No.1, itvis reflected that gainst adverse remarks communicated in respect of the year 199i-$2 a representation was made by the petitioner which was rejected. > u here is net‘her any pieading nor any matenai on recoru to show that petitioner has asserted the oruer dated 22/G3fé‘4 (Annexu e R-i ; 5; in this View of the matter, action of respondents in not promoting the petitioner cannot be said to 'oe'iiiegal. it is trite that though a Government servant has a right to be consider’ed for promotion there is no indefeasabie right to be promoted me reason assugned by respondents in not promoting th petitioner is neither extraneous nor n has been oemonstrated to be In Violation of l any statutow provrswns or goldeixnes m tne *nat‘er of promotion in me absence of there being vroiation of statutO'v provisions criteria of promotion or pe i as ch mano rnaoe iI2u0 rea‘i his eiii a s o na s te n r th eu a , urxféasorxabie in acticm, it is mt witiiin the purviéw Gf jurisdictitm of ihis Court to enter inio an exercise of reassessmem or suitaeiiity‘ I lnor promotion. 6. There is yef anothef reason wny the petition i3 iiabie lLo he oisrnisseo. = = 1-:he petitionef suffer‘eci supercession way back in the year 1934 I\ wnere I his junior was promoted. it appears that petitioner hao' been making certain representations; and iasi repreeentation made by the petitioner i3 on 3ii05i2000. it is weh I settneci I reputed repreeentation o'o riotjuetify deia‘y'in approaching Court of iaw. it is not a case where after having fiied representation, petitioner approache J this E wourt h after reasonabie time when the oroer of promotion was issued on 1:21:34, , h accepting the case oi me petitioner as it is, as reriected from his representation ciateci 31/5/2000. First representation was made by the petitioner on “5&6 i.e. more than 2 years after the promotion was mao‘e. Thereafter, petitioner o'io' not cio anything and preferred representation after 4 years, on 3tiG5I2800. Finaiiy this petition came to be fiied on 44i7i01. -g .u . in the case of Uttaranchai Forest-Deveiopment’ Corpn. And another 7 i vs. Jabar Singi? and others, (2567) 2‘ SCC f12, it was ohsenied as under: 43. The termination order was made in the year t§§5 and the writ petitions were admittediy med in the year 2005 aher a delay of 10 years. The High Court in our opinion was not justifted in entertaining thewrit petition on the ground that the petition has beenfiied after a deiay of, 19 years and that the writ petitions shouid have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of iaches. 8. Further,’in the case of New Deihi‘ Municipai Council v. Pan $ingir and others,(2667) 9 SOC 278, the Supreme Court reiterating the principies reiating to interference in cases where petitioner approached the Court with unexpiained deiay as beiow: 16. There is anoief aspec% of the mafier which cannot b iost sighi of The respondents erein flied a writ petiiion after 17 years. The did not auitate thir grievaes r a Iong time They, as notice herein did eE‘t eiaim parit wiih _the 1.? workmee at the eriiet eeeeiie' opportunity. They cud ot Impiea themseives as parties ever. i te refeienee mad by the State before the indtriai Tribunai, it i not their who were case recruitee that after after 1982 the those cutoff em dpaté levees have who been were gréntectP-the em eyed eeié or ecaie not have of pay. een After entertained such a ieng even time if they iherefore are siiiariy the situated. rit petitioee 'it‘iscchi" trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour f those who approac the court after a ng tim Deiay and iaches ere reievnt actos for exerciee of quitebie iurie-c‘iiction. ($ee Govt of WE. v. Tarun . Ra/2, UP. ai‘ Nr‘gam v. Jaant Singi‘é eno Kamataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangapparfz.) 9. in the case of P. S. 3adasivaswamy vs. '8tate of Tamii aoiu, ('i $75) 'i N 33C 152, it has been heid as under:- “it is not that there is any period of iirnitation for the Courts to exercise their oowers under Articie 226 nor is it that there can never be a caee where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain'iength of time. But it wouid be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Artiste 22$ in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiousiy for reiief and who stand by and aiiow things to hanger: and th n approach the Coert to'put forwarc: stale claims and try to ansettie settied matters. The petitioner’s petition shouio‘, therefore, iiaVe been o'ismisseo‘ in iimine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. tciogs the work of the Court and irn‘oedes the work of the Court in considering iegitimate grievances as aiso its normai work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the apoeiiant’s petition as weii as the appeai.” 10. >in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of indie, (1992} 3 30¢ 138, it was heid as under: 8. There is another viaspect of the matter. inordinate and ui:c.-.:..:i’u::icui Q‘sru'v i ‘ur t ra’yit'c$ i'a u; iféaEH ,r a give-aw: tQ {cigiigé re‘ief to the petitioner, irrespective of the merit L o. 5 x is ciaim. if a person entitled to a reiiet‘ chooses to remain siient for long. he thereby gives rise to a reasonabie belief in the mind of others that he is not interested in ciaiming that reiief. Others are'then justified in acting on that belief. This is more so in service matters where vacancies are required to be titled promptly. A person cannot be permitted to challenge the termination of his service after a period of twent‘ -two years, without any cogent expianetion'for the inordinate delay, mereiy because others simiiariy dismissed had been reinstated as a result of their earlier petitions being allowed. n e nc fo d n d n h e us s h e . h y y ee b I b rh w o h lo e a fr e K j J sw 11. it is thus dear Consequentfy, ' mere shafi be no order as i0 cost. // Mamndra M°han Shr'wastava tha: tne petititmer is gmi‘y of wiay and Eache$. i do rim Wid ariy merits in mis petition. Petitwn ta a‘ismisseci. Sdl- 5, zr ’Udge ”i