IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31135 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.N.SREEDEVI, SALES ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, WADAKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.BHASKARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, KANNUR-670 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. CORPORATE OFFICE, KANNUR-1 ADV.MR.E.K. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.31135 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 on the ground that an anomaly has crept therein as regards the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Sales Assistant. According to the petitioner, as a result of the anomaly, several juniors of the petitioner were given promotion to the cadre of Sales Supervisors superseding the petitioner. Therefore, The petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent. The petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 expeditiously. On a question put by the Court as to when exactly Ext.P3 was published, the counsel for the petitioner admits that it was published on 11.12.1993. The petitioner has not given any satisfactory explanation in the writ petition as to why the petitioner did not challenge Ext.P3 within a reasonable time. The petitioner is seeking modification of Ext.P3 after seventeen years. W.P.(C)No.31135/10 2 I am not inclined to entertain such a claim after seventeen years, since the writ petition is bad for unexplained delay and laches. I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of a person who was sleeping over his rights for seventeen long years. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.31135/10 3