CWP No.16237 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16237 of 1990 Date of Decision: 23.05.2011 Harish Kumar Sud ... Petitioner Versus The D.A.V. College Managing Committee and Ors. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.3 and 4. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition is for directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner taking into account the entire period of his service including the period before the confirmation and to grant the petitioner all the consequential benefits of pay seniority etc. The case in my view stale and petitioner was grossly guilty of laches. I will not, therefore, enter into the issue on merits for the following reason: 2. The petitioner had been appointed against leave vacancy on 21.07.1980 as a Lecturer in the respondent College for one year. On completion of one year, he was further re-appointed for one year. He was confirmed on the post w.e.f. 01.04.1982 and earned new increment one year CWP No.16237 of 1990 -2- later. The petitioner's contention was that as per Clause 7(b) of Service and Conduct of Teachers Ordinance, if as a temporary or on probation, appointment of a teacher is made against a substantive post, he shall be entitled full salary and the period of temporary service of a person so appointed shall also count towards his confirmation. 3. When he earned his increment one year after 01.04.1982 that was a period when cause of action arose for the petitioner to contend that he was entitled to the benefit of Clause 7(b) of Service and Conduct of Teachers Ordinance but he gave a representation only in the year 1987 which was rejected. He challenged the same by means of writ petition and this Court had directed the due consideration of the representation. This was also rejected and the present writ petition challenges the order passed rejecting his representation. 3. Mere direction for consideration of representation without going to the merits cannot be taken as affording any right to the relief which he was asking and bury under carpet the delay already caused. For a relief that was refused to him even in the year 1983, he could not have relief through a representation in the year 1987 and the writ in the year 1990. The relief sought for cannot be granted and dismissed as such. MAY 23, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE