IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1290 of 2009 RAMJEET SINGH S/O LATE RAM AYODHYA SINGH MOH.- SALIMPUR AHRA, LANE NO. 1, P.S.- GANDHI MAIDAN, TOWN AND DIST.- PATNA … Appellant-Petitioner Versus 1. THE GOVERNOR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE SAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, MUMBAI- 400001 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, DEPT. OF ADMINISTRATION & PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI- 400001 (MAHARASTRA) 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, SOUTH GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA- 800001 (BIHAR) 4. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DEPT. OF ADMINISTRATION & PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, MUMBAI- 400001 (MAHARASTRA) … Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr. R.K.Srivastava, Adv. For the R.B.I. : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Adv. With Mr. Amish Kumar, Adv. -----------_ 2. 17.3.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. In this intra-Court appeal the appellant- writ petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 7.9.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 11214 of 2009 dismissing the writ application of the appellant- writ petitioner filed by him for a direction to the respondents to cancel unilateral withdrawal, if any, of the of the personal promotion given to the appellant- writ petitioner on 21st December, 2 2000 and also for restoring his promotion on the post of Grade ‘C’ in the Reserve Bank of India with all consequential benefits. The Single Judge in this regard in the impugned order has held that the writ petitioner in fact had not chosen to raise a stale matter quite belatedly, inasmuch as the appellant- writ petitioner had taken voluntary retirement with effect from 28.2.2004 but the writ application was filed by him after more than five years, on 31.8.2009. Counsel for the appellant has however sought to explanation the delay by taking a plea that the impugned order rejecting representation of the appellant- writ petitioner was passed by the competent authority of the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) only on 5th June, 2009 and in such circumstances the writ application questioning the aforementioned order filed on 31.8.2009 cannot be held to be belated. We are, however, not impressed with the aforementioned submission for more than one reason. There is no denial to the fact that the appellant- writ petitioner was granted personal promotion on exercise 3 his option to a Grade ‘C’ post in the Bank with effect from 3.10.2000 but then he had himself subsequently by an application dated 6.8.2001 made a request to the Bank to withdraw his such personal promotion on the ground that he wanted to earn promotion in normal channel on a Grade ‘C’ post. Such personal promotion given to the petitioner, therefore, was withdrawn on his own request way back in the year 2001 and thereafter, he had continued in service of the Bank till 28.2.2004 before seeking and being allowed to take his voluntary retirement. All his retirement benefits in terms of VRS Scheme of the Bank were also settled in the year 2004 and therefore, if he had chosen to file a representation on 1.3.2009 making a grievance with regard to the aforesaid personal promotion, its disposal by the authority on 5th June, 2009 by itself could not have been sufficient to explain the delay in reopening an issue which had stood settled long back in the year 2001 itself. The concept of old wine getting better and better by efflux of time is not applicable to service jurisprudence and therefore, the learned Single Judge had rightly held that if the 4 appellant- writ petitioner had earned his personal promotion on a representation made by him and was himself instrumental in getting it withdrawn by filing another representation he cannot be allowed to question the same after five years of retirement of his service. This Court in fact would find that there was also an element of concealment and suppression of material fact in the writ application filed by the appellant- writ petitioner which by itself had disentitled him for any relief in extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner infact never informed this Court in the connected writ application filed by him for his promotion that his such personal promotion given to him in the year 2000 was withdrawn on his own representation dated 6.8.2001 and his assertion to the contrary that the same was actually unilaterally withdrawn by the Bank was definitely made with a view to mislead this Court. It is well settled that a writ petitioner must approach the writ court with clean hands, in absence whereof the writ application can be dismissed on that ground alone. 5 Surendra/ We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)