THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Appeal No.296 of 2009 ORDER: (per B.Prakash Rao, J.) -- Heard both the learned counsel and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner, who sought for Writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia complaining that discrimination is meted out to him from the date of his initial appointment. 3. The case of the petitioner, appellant herein, is to the effect that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and he has been fully qualified. He applied, in response to advertisement, to the post of Specialist (Ophthalmology), but he was appointed to the lower post of Junior Specialist (Ophthalmology) on 20th September, 1995 and subsequently, such promotion also being effected. However, from the date of initial appointment, there is clear discrimination meted out to him. The respondent management subjected him to invidious discrimination continuously on caste basis, both in the status and emoluments and placed him under the respondent No.2, who is less qualified and less experienced than him. Though he submitted a representation to respondent No.1, the same was replied without any valid reasons. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. The learned Single Judge did not find favour with the petitioner’s grievance mainly on the ground that the petitioner, who accepted the initial appointment without any demur and never questioned the action of the respondent at every stage when he was given promotions, now after lapse of 13 years filed the Writ Petition, therefore, there is a clear delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge further held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary one and a person, who does not pursue his remedies diligently, is not entitled to invoke such a discretionary remedy. 5. Having regard to the reasons given by the learned Single Judge and as there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner’s grievance is dates back to the year 1995, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 6. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 19th March, 2009. skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO : 296 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/12/2008 in WP NO : 28161 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: N. Ananda Rao, S/o. N. Mukhalingam, Steel Plant General Hospital, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, (A Govt. of India Enterprise), VISAKHAPATNAM 530 031, A.P. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Represented by its Chairman and Manging Director, Administrative Buidling, Visakhapatnam - 530 031 A.P. 2 Director (Personal and Administration) Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam - 530 031 A.P. 3 Dr. Ch. Vani, W/o. D.V.S. Kuma, Chief Specialist (Ophthalmology) Visakha Steel General Hospital, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam - 530 031. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.G.S.RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.RAVINDER RAO The Court made the following :