IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.273 of 1997 Sri MADHUSUDAN PRASAD SHARMA s/o Late Hanuman Prasad Singh village- Sohijan P. O Berain District Muzaffarpur at present working as AE Advance Planning Field Survey Division, Road Construction Division, Munger. (since dead) …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Technical Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 2. Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Department of Technical Secretariat, Bihar Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 4. 11.05.2011 I. A. No. 393 of 2011 Heard Mr. Dr. M. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this application, a prayer has been made for substitution of sole petitioner who is said to have died on 22.2.2000. There is no explanation whatsoever in this application filed after 11 years of the death of sole petitioner as to the reason for filing such belated application for substitution. Law in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Puran Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1092 approving the full bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Teja Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh reported in A.I.R. 1982 2 P&H 169 that even if the period of limitation as prescribed under Order 22 C.P.C. will not be ipso facto applicable in the proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India but even then an application for substitution in a pending writ application has to be filed within a reasonable period. In the matter relating to claim of seniority of the original petitioner in the present case which has not only the consequence of affecting the rights of other teachers but also involves question of payment of salary alike other already promoted persons, the delay of 11 years would itself cause an upheaval in the process of revising entire seniority list and this Court in absence of any explanation would find it difficult to allow such a grossly belated substitution petition. In this background this Court has also examined the merits of the case to find out the grievance of the dependent wife, now seeking substitution of deceased writ petitioner. From the prayer of the writ petition it however becomes clear that grievance of the original writ petitioner even otherwise not maintainable 3 inasmuch as the original writ petitioner had made a prayer for assailing a seniority list of the year 1988 and its revision made on 15.6.1992 vide Annexure-1 by filing this writ application on 9.1.1997 after more than five to nine years of cause of action and that too without impleading any person against whom he wanted his seniority to be revised. The prayer of the original petitioner in paragraph 1 of the writ application in fact reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ in the shape of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent state to revise the seniority list of Assistant Engineer as in the case of Raghubansh Pd. Singh vide notification dt. 2.9.95 (Annexure-5) at place below Haldhar Dwivedi and above Kumar Ram Narain Singh and below Raghubansh Pd. Singh and to order the same revision in notification no. 2758(a) dt. 15.6.1992 (Annexure-1) and to pay them salary increment etc. as per rules to the petitioner as it has been paid to Sri Raghubansh Pd. Singh. And it is further prayed that the petitioner as the Executive Engineer from the date Sri Raghubansh Pd. Singh his senior and Kumar Ram Narain Singh his junior was notified with notification no. 6097(s) dated 24.8.1994 (Annexure-6) It is also prayed that Sri Raghubansh Pd. Singh’s seniority in 4 Assistant Engineer was revised vide notification no. 3375(s) dated 21.6.93(Annexure-6) and the effect of the date his promotion in Assistant Engineer was treated from 8.8.1975 with notification no. 4973 dt. 2.9.95 (Annexure-5), the same date may apply in the case of the petitioner as their seniority was revised with notification no. 62 dt. 21.2.1994 (Annexure-3) at serial no. 366B (at page 14 of the notification 15.6.92 (Annexure-4) their respective positions were 1340 and 1341.” From reading of the aforementioned prayer, it would be clear that the original petitioner had prayed for being placed below Haldhar Dwivedi and above Kumar Ram Narain Singh but none of them or any one between them had been made party to this writ application. Therefore seniority already determined and finalized on 15.6.1992 under specific orders of this Court passed in series of earlier writ applications of other persons in fact could not be revised behind their back and without giving them an opportunity of hearing. The plea of the original petitioner that his case and the case one Raghubansh Pd. Singh was same and similar and since seniority Mr. Singh was revised 5 by the respondents by an order dated 24.8.1994, the same relief should have been given to the original petitioner, is again wholly misconceived inasmuch as the aforesaid Raghubansh Pd. Singh had filed his writ petition immediately after finalization of the gradation list in the year 1994 and in that writ petition when an order was passed by this Court for revising his seniority, the respondent had come out by placing him at Serial No. 1164-A. This was also done after giving notice to all the affected persons and after publishing the same in the newspaper as has been clearly asserted by the Respondents in the counter affidavit. Such exercise having been made well within knowledge and notice of the original petitioner, if he at that point of time had not placed his case for revising his seniority, he could not have been allowed to assail the seniority of others as and when it became convenient to him. It is trite law that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after long lapse of time specially when the same would lead to adverse consequences for others who have already been promoted on account of revised seniority. 6 This Court in fact has gone into the merit of this case only to find out as to whether the substitution of the sole petitioner was even otherwise permissible in law but on careful consideration it has found that there is hardly any merit in this writ application. That being so, it will have no difficulty in holding that after death of the sole petitioner the right to sue in the matter relating to his seniority also did not survive for the widow for pursuing the prayer of the revision of seniority list. I.A. No. 393 of 2011 with a prayer for substitution of sole petitioner is thus wholly misconceived and is accordingly rejected. In view of above, this writ application itself has abated and thus dismissed. kanchan ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)