{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.749/2010 ROOPA RAM PARIHAR & ANR. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Date of Judgment : 22.12.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. Dhirendra Singh, for the appellants. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra-court appeal filed by writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 10321 of 2010 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 against an order dated 12.11.2010 passed by Single Judge in above mentioned writ petition. Facts of the case are these 2. The appellants are State employees working in the Department of Public Works. They filed a writ petition out of which this intra court appeal arise claiming promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from the date their juniors were promoted. It is this relief that was declined to the writ petitioners by the writ court on two grounds namely: Firstly there was delay in filing the writ petition in seeking relief and secondly, the juniors against whom the relief was { 2 } claimed were not made parties to the writ petition. It is against the order; the writ petitioners have felt aggrieved and filed this intra court appeal. 3. This is what the learned single judge held, while dismissing the writ petition. “The petitioners entered in the services with the respondents being appointed as Junior Engineers in the year 1982. The promotions were given to the petitioner No.1 as Assistant Engineer on 15.4.2005 against the vacancies of the year 2004-05. The petitioner No.2 was promoted as such under an order dated 17.6.2008 against the vacancies of the year 2006-07. By an order dated 7.2.2002 Sarva Shri Yad Ram, Madan Lal Meghwal and Raju Ram were promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) Diploma Holder. The grievance of the petitioners is that Sarva Shri Yad Ram, Madan Lal Meghwal and Raju Ram were junior to them in the cadre of Junior Engineers, thus, their promotions prior to them under the order dated 7.2.2002 is erroneous. It is also submitted that beside the above named three persons Swaroop Raj Khorwal and Bansilal Kasotiya too were promoted as Assistant Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1997-98 under an order dated 2.4.2003 and these two persons were also junior than the petitioner. With the factual background above the petitioners are claiming promotion from the date persons junior to them were promoted. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioners are claiming promotions from the date, persons junior to them were promoted. Such junior persons are not party to the proceedings. If any order as prayed is { 3 } issued by this Court, that will certainly effect rights of the persons said to be junior than the petitioner. No such order, therefore, can be passed by this Court in their absence. The persons said to be junior than the petitioners are party necessary to the proceedings. This petition for writ suffers from lacunae i.e. of non-joinder of necessary party. Beside the above the persons said to be junior to the petitioners were promoted much back in the year 2002 and 2003. No adequate explanation is given by the petitioners for causing delay to challenge such promotions. The delay in filing the writ petition clearly indicates latches on part of the petitioners and that disentitle them to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petition for writ is dismissed.” 4. We find no ground to differ with the reasoning and conclusion of the writ court that resulted in dismissal of the writ petition. 5. In our opinion, both the grounds are material and fatal to the writ petition. They were rightly made basis for rejection of the writ petition on the facts pleaded in the writ petition. It is held by the Supreme Court that in matters of promotion, the aggrieved person must approach to the court within a reasonable time. It is held that the delay causes problems in execution of the order once passed in favour of the writ petitioner because it unsettles the promotion and seniority list prepared long back. That apart, if the juniors who are promoted, are not made party to the writ petition, then in such event, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. It is a settled principal of law that no orders can be passed against any { 4 } person behind his back who is likely to be affected by the order, if passed, in favour of writ petitioner. In this case, the relief was claimed essentially against the persons who according to the writ petitioners were junior to them and promoted by ignoring their claim. This according to the writ petitioners occurred in the year 2002 whereas they approached to writ court for claiming relief in the year 2010. The writ court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition on these two grounds. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants (writ petitioners) was unable to satisfy this court as to how and why these two grounds could not be made basis for rejection of their writ petitioners. 7. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this intra court appeal. It is accordingly dismissed in limini. ( C.M. TOTLA ),J. ( A . M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/