IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.17996 of 2010 Date of decision : 31.10.2011 Puran Mal ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Joshi, Advocate Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner prays that the action of the respondents by which he has been ignored for promotion as Company Commander against a reserved category be quashed and he be granted promotion with effect from the date when it fell due to him considering his particular claim against a reserved vacancy. The petitioner is a member of disciplined force i.e. Indo- Tibetan Border Police Force in which he was appointed as a Naik on 11.7.1972 under the sports quota. On the basis of his performance he was promoted as Hawaldar w.e.f. 1.11.1972 and then Junior Intelligence Officer w.e.f. 4.4.1975. The petitioner then qualified a competitive exam and was promoted as Subedar w.e.f. 23.12.1981. He then earned his promotion as Company Commander on adhoc C.W.P.No.17996 of 2010 -2- basis with effect from 24.10.1989 and was regularised on 26.9.1990. This is the earliest point of his grievance and according to him, in the year 1989 there were total 8 number of Company Commanders who were promoted and none was promoted from the reserved category whereas the petitioner being from the said category was entitled for promotion from August 1989. His further grievance is that vide orders dated 8.12.1997 three other candidates were promoted to the post of Company Commander on regular basis whereas the petitioner was promoted as DSP on adhoc basis and later on regularised as same in 1990. In short, his claim is that the benefit of reserveration should have been given to him and his name be brought on the rolls of Company Commanders in August 1989. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner by primarily pleading that it is a matter which is more than two decades old and the records pertaining to the promotion have been weeded out. Besides, they have stated that the petitioner earned two more promotions after the disputed one in 1989 i.e. in 2004 and 2007 when he was promoted as Deputy Commandant and Inspector General, respectively. It is submitted that at no point of time during his service tenure did the petitioner raise the issue and it is only shortly prior to his superannuation that such a grievance has been raised. I have considered the pleas that have been raised before this Court. I am of the opinion that the petition is hopelessly barred by delay and latches. The earliest point of time when the petitioner should have raised the grievance was in the proximity of 1989-90 C.W.P.No.17996 of 2010 -3- which he never did. Even though a remotely suggestive representation of his grievance which has been placed on record pertains to the year 1998, yet thereafter no attempt was made to even get this decided. The petitioner then earned two promotions in the year 2004 and 2007 and even at that point of time no grievance was raised that his initial promotion as Company Commander in 1989 was erroneous and contrary to his claim to the reserved category. The petitioner having acquiesced silently to the act of the respondents, his inaction cannot now agitate this claim especially after a lapse of more than two decades when the respondents have weeded out the records as well. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 31.10.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss