IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3995 of 2010 1. RAJEEV RANJAN SUDHANSHU S/O SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD SINGH R/O A-42, GANGA APARTMENT, L.C.T. GHAT, P.S. PATLIPUTRA, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN N.R.E.P., JAMUI 2. AMLESHWAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE JAGDISH SINGH R/O HOUSE NO. 1238'2, MAHATMA GANDHI NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, P.S. PATRAKAR NAGAR, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT DEPUTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT 3. PREM NATH S/O LATE UGRAH SINGH R/O SAVITRI BHAWAN, JAGDEO NAGAR, WEST BAILEY ROAD, P.S. RUPASPUR, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION, HAJIPUR 4. SANJAY SHARMA S/O SHRI SIYARAM SHARMA R/O HOUSE NO.-12, MAURYA VIHAR, KHAGAUL, P.S. KHAGAUL, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN N.H. SUB-DIVISION, ARWAL 5. GHANSHYAM MANDAL S/O SHRI JAGESHWAR PRASAD MANDAL R/O VILL.- MADHELI, P.S. BARARI, DISTT.- KATIHAR, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM, PATNA 6. BHULAN PRASAD S/O SHRI DEO NANDAN PRASAD R/O MUHALLA- CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, ROAD NO.1, BIBIGANJ, P.S. SADAR, TOWN AND DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN BUILDING SUB-DIVISION, LAKHISARAI 7. UPENDRA KUMAR S/O SHRI PARMANAND PRASAD R/O VILLAGE + P.O. - POONA, P.S. HILSA, DISTT. NALANDA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER IN BUILDING DIVISION, SASARAM Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-ADDITIONAL SECRETARY - CUM - SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. DEPUTY SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 02. 23.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2 The petitioners were diploma holder in Civil Engineering and were appointed as Junior Engineers in the Department of Road Construction. They have acquired the qualification of A.M.I.E. Subsequently, on separate dates as mentioned in Annexure-1 series. They have then been granted promotion as Assistant Engineers on basis of the latter qualification on various dates in between 2004-2006. They claim eligibility for such consideration and the shifting of the date of promotion to the year 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in accordance with the instructions dated 22.7.1998 of the Road Construction Department, 10% of the total posts are supposed to be filled up only from A.I.M.E. qualification in the prescribed manner. It is contended that under the circular, the petitioners fulfill the requisite eligibility to be considered for promotion from the year 2000. The petitioners have represented in the years 2006 and 2007 with no avail. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer primarily on the grounds of delay. He submits that, if promotions have been given to the petitioners in between 2004-2006, any direction for consideration for their claims in the year 2010 shall have a cascading effect on seniority matters settled in 3 between. All such persons likely to be affected shall have to be necessary parties. This Court may not interfere at such belated stage. The law stands well settled that delay is vital in service cases, especially in matters of seniority. A belated interference with issues of seniority shall inevitably result in disturbing the settled gradation lists, settled issues of seniority, create heart burning and lead to unnecessary litigation. Naturally, those who may have marched ahead shall be sanguine of their seniority for these long years and shall not cherish the challenge so belatedly. The law is equally settled that mere filing of representations does not suffice to justify a belated cause of action in a Court of law. In A.I.R. 1974 (SC) 2271 (P.S. Sadasivaswamy Versus State of T.N.) it has been held that:- “A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 4 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle matters. The Petitioner’s petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant’s petition as well as the appeal.” If the petitioners have represented, nothing precludes the respondents from considering the same in their administrative wisdom. But this observation does not tantamount to condoning the delay on the part of the petitioner in having approached the Court. The application stands disposed with the aforesaid observation declining any relief. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)