CWP No. 4550 of 2009. 7.12.2009. Present: Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. CMP No.8210 of 2009. Allowed. CWP No.4550 of 2009. Petitioner was appointed to the post of Stenographer on daily wages basis vide order dated 2nd March, 1985. She was regularized w.e.f. 18th November, 1985. The petitioner made representations for counting the ad hoc period for the purpose of regular service on 1st November, 2006 and 21st November, 2006. The same were rejected by the competent authority on 5th July, 2007. Mr. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Divisional Manager has written a letter to the General Manager (Annexure P-14) for considering the representation made by the petitioner. However, the fact of the matter is that the representation was considered as per Annexure P-10 and was rejected on 5th July, 2007. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has strenuously argued that the present writ petition is barred by delay and laches. He then contended that the petitioner should have filed the writ petition immediately after the accrual of cause of action in the year 1985 or at the most when seniority list was circulated i.e. Annexure P-3 in the year 2000. We have heard Mr. S.D. Gill and Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis and thereafter her services were regularized. She is at Sr.No.8 in the seniority list i.e. Annexure P-3 and respondent No.3 is at Sr. No.7. Petitioner made representation vide Annexure P-6 dated 1st November, 2006 and Annexure P-7 dated 21st November, 2006. The Divisional Manager has sent a communication to the General Manager (Administration) on 26th February, 2007. However, the fact of the matter is that the representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 5th July, 2007 on the ground that it was not possible to reopen the case after a lapse of 22 years. There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the order dated 5th July, 2007. The petitioner has slept over her rights. She has earlier filed OA No. 2404 of 2007, which was registered as CWP(T) No. 15652 of 2008. It was withdrawn by the petitioner on 14th October, 2009 to implead respondent No.3. The filing of earlier O.A. No.2404 of 2007 will not cover the delay and laches. The seniority list ought to have been challenged within a reasonable period of 1 or 2 years at the most. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine. CMP No.8209 of 2009. Infructuous. (R.B. Misra), ACJ. 7th December, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. (tr)