HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.24807 OF 2009 Dt.25.1.2010 Between: Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Secretary. .. Petitioner And A.Lakshminarayana and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.24807 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. O.A.No.4909 of 1992 filed by the applicant-1st respondent herein to declare that he is entitled for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant/ Senior Auditor from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted to the said post with all consequential benefits, was allowed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal by order dated 3.1.2003 on the ground that when the applicant was recruited initially in 1969 HUDA Regulations were in force governing the promotion and subsequently it was replaced in 1979 by A.P.Urban Area Development Act, 1975 and therefore the earlier regulations were deemed to have been existing when the case of the applicant came up for promotion and as per the clarification issued by the Government those who have recruited prior to 1987 graduation qualification is not required and therefore the applicant though was not entitled for promotion and accordingly directed to consider the case of the applicant. The case of the 1st respondent-applicant, in fact, was considered in the contempt case pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 3.1.2003 in O.A.No.4909 of 1992 and the contempt case was closed on 6.11.2003 as the petitioner herein gave an assurance to implement the said order. The only grievance of the petitioner is that if the non-graduate is considered for promotion, the same will be contrary to the present regulations. We are unable to accept the said contention as the said contention was considered and distinguished by the Tribunal itself. However, we are not inclined to admit the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition is hopelessly belated and the petitioner has chosen to question the said order after lapse of six years. There is no explanation explaining the inordinate delay in approaching this Court after the lapse of six years. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 25.1.2010 kpr