IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14494 of 2009 KAMESHWAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 13.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the B.P.S.C. The petitioner in this writ application assails the order dated 28.11.1990 promoting respondent no.7 on the single post of Assistant Director (Monitoring) in the Statistics Branch of the Education Department as also the order dated 14.9.1996 promoting respondent no.7 ad hoc to the post of Deputy Director of Education(Statistics) and finally the order dated 31.07.1997 confirming respondent no.7 on the said post of Deputy Director (Statistics). It is not in controversy that the petitioner has retired from the service on 31.01.2000 and that respondent no. 7 has also retired from service. It appears that the petitioner had come to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 11551 of 1999 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 07.01.2009. The application for restoration bearing M.J.C. No. 133 of 2009 has also been rejected on 30.01.2009. The present writ application has then been filed afresh. The contention is that in absence of any adjudication on the earlier occasion, the principles of res-judicata will not be applicable. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001(2) S.C.C.259 submitting that delay per-se 2 can not be a ground to decline entertaining a writ petition when fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 are involved. There is no right to promotion but there is only a right to be considered for promotion. The enforcement of the right to be considered for promotion is required to be done in time. Likewise, a grievance with regard to non- consideration for promotion, under Article 14 and 16, is also required to be pursued on time expeditiously. It is a reasonable presumption that this Court refused to allow the restoration application inter alia on the belated nature of the claim. The order refusing restoration has not been brought on record. Delay in service matters is of vital significance. Any belated order, especially in matters of seniority always has a cascading effect and may also entail monetary issues. Even if the present controversy be in context of a single post with only two contestants in the fray, any belated interference 19 years later, when respondent no. 7 shall be sanguine in his days of superannuation, shall be doing gross injustice to him. The petitioner cannot be a beneficiary of his own lapses. The writ application is dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. U.K. (Navin Sinha,J)