CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4565 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 20, 2009 Dalip Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. K. Sud, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to seek their notional promotion from the date their juniors were promoted by giving them correct seniority as Inspectors on the basis of merit determined by S.S.S.Board. The Board had selected the petitioners in the year 1961 and they have now woken up to file this petition to claim seniority as per the merit determined by the Board in the year 1961. No doubt, the prayer of the petitioners has been declined on 13.12.2007 when their legal notice, directed to be disposed of by this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4565 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: court, has been decided. The fact remains that the petitioners are claiming seniority on the basis of merit which was determined in the year 1961. Grievance is that seniority of Sub Inspectors Cooperative Societies was fixed on the basis of passing of training and not as per the merit determined by the S.S.S.Board. The delay on the part of the petitioners to file this writ petition is explained on the ground that some of the persons had filed a writ petition in 1987 to challenge the action of Registrar in this regard which was allowed on 22.1.2003. Another writ petition was decided on 18.8.2005, on the basis of which the petitioners served a legal notice which has now been declined as having no merit. These reasons would not offer justified grounds to explain this inordinate delay. Having known that some of the similarly situated petitioners approached this court in the years 1987 and 1988, the petitioners still did not take any action to file petition before this court. They have, thus, no explanation to offer for delay from 1987 to 2007 when they filed this writ petition. In the reply filed, the claim of the petitioners is disputed. It is pointed out that nothing about merit was mentioned in the list of recommendees, who were sent for training at the Institute w.e.f. 1.6.1961. The list was statedly not prepared in accordance with the merit list of S.S.S.Board. It is, thus, pleaded that in the absence of seniority list prepared by the S.S.S.Board, the seniority of the petitioners cannot be rectified. Obviously, the recommendation of the S.S.S.Board of Punjab was made when State of Haryana was not even in existence. In the year 1966, Registrar Cooperative Societies sent the joint seniority list to the department of the State of Haryana and on the basis of this joint seniority list, further seniority lists were CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4565 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: issued by the department in the year 1971 onwards. Subsequent promotions were made to the next higher post of Inspector accordingly. From the annexures filed with the reply, it is noticed that seniority lists were circulated in the years 1971, 1983, 1995 and 1999. Even as per the orders, on which the reliance has been placed, seniority has been redetermined only on the basis of joint seniority list sent by Punjab as on 13.5.1967. If any order for readjusting the seniority list is now made, it will accordingly affect the persons, who are already shown senior in the list, which will prejudicially affect them. None of those persons, who will be so effected, have been impleaded as party. The petitioners have no valid explanation to offer for delay in making the present approach. The reference to the writ petitions as made are those which were filed in the years 1987 and 1988. The delay would defeat equity in favour of the petitioners. The writ being a discretionary remedy could be refused if the circumstances are such which will cause a serious prejudice to other employees, who are not party to the litigation. The petitioners have made reference to some judgments to show that the benefit of a judgment cannot be restricted to set of employees, who have approached the court and such benefits have to be given to all. Though this may be principally so, but the petitioners have inordinately delayed in making the approach, for which there is no valid explanation forthcoming. This delay has been inordinately long and has remained unexplained. As held in K.R.Mudgal and others Vs. R.P.Singh and others, (1986) 4 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4565 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: Supreme Court Cases 531, the courts should not entertain petitions challenging seniority after inordinate delay. It is essential that anyone who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the court as early as possible as otherwise in addition to creation of sense of insecurity in the minds of the Government servants, there would also be administrative complications and difficulties. This court in Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2007(1) SCT 525 while dismissing the writ on the grounds of delay and laches observed that writ court will not exercise its jurisdiction to unsettle the settled rights. In Rabindernath Bose Vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 470, it is held that writ petition would not be maintainable when a petition is filed after 15 years attacking the changes as violative of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution. No relief can be given to the petitioner, who without any reasonable explanation, approaches the courts after inordinate delay. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot discard all principles and grant relief. See Trilokchand and Motichand V. M.B.Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110 and Laxmanappa Hanumantappa Jamkhandi V. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 3. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction on the ground of delay on the part of the petitioners to make this approach. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. October 20, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4565 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: