IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1403 of 2009 SELAHUDDIN AHMAD RAFIQUE Versus THE BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK & ors. ----------- 3. 20/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. This matter has been listed today for consideration of I.A. No. 7039 of 2009 preferred in the appeal for condoning the delay of approximately 177 days in preferring the appeal. With consent of the counsels for the appellant and the Respondents, We consider it desirable to dispose of the appeal itself since a very short question is involved. Having heard counsel for the parties, I.A. No. 7039 of 2009 is allowed. The delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. The appellant seeks relief to be considered for promotion to O.S. Grade II category now J.M.G.S. II in the Respondent-Bank. The impugned orders of promotion granted to his juniors have been passed in August and November, 2000. Others aggrieved by the same came to this Court in CWJC No. 9064 of 2001, which came to be allowed on 19.2.2009 with certain directions/ concessions. The appellant on 23.11.2008 appears to 2 have filed an application in that writ application for being added as a party-petitioner praying for similar relief. A Bench of this Court while passing the impugned order declined to allow his intervention application to be added as writ petitioner. Counsel for the appellant sought to persuade us that since no further arguments were required, the facts were identical, interest of justice requires that the petitioner should be given similar treatment as this would also prevent multiplicity of litigations. Learned counsel for the Bank supported the impugned order of rejection of the intervention application on settled principles of delay. Delay in service matters especially promotions has been considered vital. Any belated interference creates cascading effect which may lead to re-writing of the entire seniority list affecting third party rights, which may have accrued in the meantime because of such delay. It is equally trite law that a belated claim seeking similar relief as granted to those who came to the Court in time can be refused to a litigant, who is not vigilant about the protection of his own right as the delay on his part itself distinguishes his case from others. 3 We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is rejected. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)