THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.1252 of 2006 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by an Assistant Sub- Inspector of the Fire Branch of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), which is recognized as an Armed Force of the Union of India. He is aggrieved by the selection of his juniors for promotion as Sub- Inspectors of the Fire Branch of the CISF. Hence, he instituted this writ petition questioning the orders passed on 18.07.2005 rejecting his representation for consideration of his case for promotion as a Sub- Inspector. The facts in this case, which are relevant for our enquiry are these: The writ petitioner along with Sri Som Dutt and Sri V. Vijayarajan were initially appointed as Head Constables in CISF on 27.04.1989, 05.04.1989 and 14.12.1989 respectively. An option has been extended to the employees to work in the Fire Branch of the service. The writ petitioner as well as the aforementioned two individuals have opted for such switchover to the Fire Branch of the service, which requests were accepted on 14.10.1991. As was noticed already Sri Som Dutt was treated as senior to the petitioner as a Head Constable while Sri V. Vijayarajan was treated as his junior. Since all of them were transferred to the Fire Branch on 14.10.1991, Sri Som Dutt was assigned seniority No.19 while the petitioner was assigned seniority No.24 and Sri V. Vijayarajan was assigned seniority No.24-A. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Sub- Inspector with effect from 09.02.1998 upon being found fit to be promoted by the DPC in the year 1997. He was thus functioning as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Fire Branch ever from 09.02.1998. Since Sri Som Dutta and Sri V. Vijayarajan were promoted as Sub- Inspectors of the Fire Branch on 18.07.2001 and 30.07.2001, he seems to have submitted a representation on 01.02.2005 followed up by another representation on 19.05.2005. The said representation has been rejected by the impugned order wherein it is observed that both Sri Som Dutt and Sri V. Vijayarajan were found fit for promotion by the DPC convened in the year 1995 and hence, they were promoted as ASIs on 03.05.1996 and 27.11.1995 respectively whereas the writ petitioner was not found fit by the DPC which was convened in the year 1995 and hence, he could not be promoted along with those two individuals. It was further stated that the DPC which was constituted in the year 1996 also reported that the petitioner was not yet fit for promotion as ASI and hence he was not promoted even in the year 1996. Whereas the DPC which was constituted in the year 1997 found him fit for promotion as Assistant Sub-Inspector and hence, the writ petitioner came to be promoted as ASIs with effect from 09.02.1998. It is asserted by the respondents that the promotions granted in favour of Sri Som Dutt and Sri V. Vijayarajan as Assistant Sub Inspectors ahead of the petitioner were never challenged and because of their earlier dates of promotion, both the above mentioned candidates fell in the zone of consideration for promotion for the selection post of Sub- Inspector and since they were found fit to be promoted they were promoted as Sub-Inspectors with effect from 18.07.2001 and 30.07.2001 respectively. Even these promotions have not been challenged by the writ petitioner and he made a representation nearly four years later on complaining about his non-selection as Sub- Inspector. Since he has not fallen within the zone of consideration for promotion as Sub-Inspector his case was not considered for such promotion is the answer furnished by the respondents. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the writ petitioner is now seeking to rake up the issue of his non-selection by the DPC which was constituted in the years 1995 and 1996 and without directly calling that in question he cannot indirectly seek to challenge the promotions accorded to the next higher rank namely Sub-Inspector in favour of other individuals. Even that promotion was accorded to those individuals in the year 2001. Therefore, the writ petitioner is seeking to rake up an old issue, which is impermissible. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the writ petitioner having accepted his promotion as Assistant Sub- Inspector on 09.02.1998 and his relative seniority position in the rank of ASI being at a lesser position than Sri Som Dutt and Sri V. Vijayarajan, the petitioner cannot make a grievance of the selection of the above mentioned two individuals as Sub-Inspectors ahead of him. It is also further contended that Sri Som Dutt is senior to the writ petitioner even in the category of Head Constables and hence, he cannot make any grievance out of selection of the said individual as a Sub-Inspector whereas Sri V. Vijayarajan, who is a junior is not impleaded in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. Lastly, the learned counsel would submit that the writ petitioner is guilty of laches on his part and hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is no doubt true that as per the entries contained in Schedule-I of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules 1969, which rules have been framed in accordance with Section 22 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act 1968, the post of the Assistant Sub-Inspector is a non-selection post while the post of Sub-Inspector is a selection post. If a departmental promotion committee considers the case of a particular employee and records a finding that the employee concerned is not fit for promotion, the employee concerned ought to have made an issue out of it. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner was said to have been considered by the DPC which was constituted in the year 1995 along with Sri Som Dutt and Sri V. Vijayarajan. The DPC found the petitioner as not fit while it found the other two individuals as fit for promotion. Hence, those two individuals were promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspectors on 03.05.1996 and 27.11.1995 respectively. That was not put in issue and challenged by the writ petitioner at all. On the other hand, the DPC which was constituted in the year 1997 found him fit and hence, the writ petitioner came to be promoted only on 09.02.1998, which promotion he has accepted without any demur. By virtue of this time gap in between the promotion of Sri Som Dutt and Sri V.Vijayarajan on one hand and that of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner had yielded place in the relative seniority list to those two individuals. That also remained unchallenged. In such circumstances, when the departmental promotion committee was once again constituted for purpose of regulating promotion to the selection post of Sub-Inspector for the Fire Branch, the writ petitioner’s name would not fall with in the zone of consideration. Promotions to selection posts are regulated by confining the consideration only to a limited number of candidates in proportion to the number of vacancies sought to be filled in. Therefore, only those candidates, who fall within that zone of consideration will be taken up for consideration for promotion by the DPC. As was noticed supra all due to laches of the writ petitioner in not challenging the earlier promotion of Sri Som Dutt and Sri V. Vijayarajan as Assistant Sub-Inspectors than him, he went down in the seniority list of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, which is the feeder category for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspectors and as a consequence of the above if he had not fallen within the zone of consideration, the writ petitioner has to blame himself. The other two individuals fell within the zone of consideration and hence, they were promoted in the year 2001. Even then, the writ petitioner has not taken prompt steps for challenging their selections as Sub-Inspectors. Nearly 4 years later on he took up the issue with the CISF. Therefore, it is the writ petitioner all by his sheer delay and laches lost out. The respondents are justified in their criticism that old and unchallenged issues cannot be raked up after long lapse of time particularly when third party interests intervened. Unfortunately, the writ petitioner has also not impleaded Sri V. Vijayarajan, his junior as a party respondent to this writ petition. He is a necessary party, if any opinion on merits is to be passed. For all these aforementioned reasons, I am constrained to dismiss this writ petition and cannot compel the respondents to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion as ASI in the year 1995, nearly 10 years later on. Hence, I dismiss this Writ Petition as it is a settled principle of law that no person can seek to agitate about a stale and sterile matter after passage of nearly 10 years time. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 27th January 2011 bud