1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Shri K.V.S. Ranawat. Versus The State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 911/2005 ... Date of Order: May 24, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. J.K. Chanda, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Deputy Govt. Advocate, for respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to reconstruct the seniority list of Assistant Engineers in accordance with law and treat the petitioner as direct recruittee against the vacancies of 1976 to 1980. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The petitioner is presently holding the post of Executive Engineer since 1980. He is challenging the seniority list of the Assistant Engineers after an unexplained inordinate delay of 30 years and without impleading any of the affected persons as a party- respondent to the writ petition. 2 In C.R. Chaudhary & ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors., 1999 (2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 574, the petitioners therein challenged the seniority list after 15 years and this Court held that during the entire period of 15 years right inter se of the persons placed above the petitioners therein in the final seniority list had crystallised and the petitioners therein cannot be permitted to reopen the matter after inordinate delay of 15 years. The Court further held that unless the final seniority list is disturbed, no relief as sought by the petitioners therein in the writ petition can be granted to them. In Sudama Devi Vs. Commissioner & ors., (1983) 2 SCC , the issue of delay in filing the writ petition was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held as under:- “There is no period of limitation prescribed by any law for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is, in fact, doubtful whether any such period of limitation can be prescribed by law. In any event, one thing is clear and beyond doubt that no such period of limitation can be laid down either under the rules made by the High Court or by practice. For every use, it would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances whether the petitioner is guilty of laches and that would have to be done without taking into account any specific period as period of limitation. There must be cases where even short delay may be fatal while there may be cases where even a long delay may not be evidence of laches on the part of the petitioner.” In State of U.P. Vs. Raj Bahadur Singh & Anr., (1988) 2 SCC 685, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no time 3 limit for filing the writ petition. All that the Court has to see is whether the laches on the part of the petitioner are such as to disentitle him to the relief claimed by him. In the instant case, the writ petition is not only suffering from delay and laches, but it has also been filed without placing on record the seniority list sought to be reconstructed, nor the petitioner has impleaded the affected persons as party respondents. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs