IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:28161 of 2008 Between: N. Ananda Rao, S/o. N. Mukhalingam, Steel Plant General Hospital, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, (A Govt. of India Enterprise), VISAKHAPATNAM 530 031. A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Administrative Building, Visakhapatnam - 530 031 A.P. 2 Director (Personal and Administration) Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam - 530 031 A.P. 3 Dr. Ch. Vani, W/o. D.V.S. Kuma, Chief Specialist (Ophthalmology) Visakha Steel General Hospital, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam - 530 031. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.S.RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.RAVINDER RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: By filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to raise the stale claims. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Specialist (Ophthalmology) in E2A Grade in respondent No.1 organisation on 20.09.1995. He was promoted as Specialist (Ophthalmology) in E3 Grade on 31.12.1998. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Specialist (Ophthalmology) in E4 Grade on 31.12.2001. On 30.06.2006, he was further promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Specialist (Ophthalmology) in E5 Grade. In this writ petition, the petitioner expressed the grievance that when advertisement was issued for Specialist (Ophthalmology) in E3A Grade on 24.05.1995, respondent No.1 arbitrarily appointed him to the post of E2A Grade, which is inferior to the advertised post. The petitioner’s further grievance lies in respondent No.1 selecting respondent No.3 as Head of the Department. The petitioner in fact, made a representation to respondent No.1 and the same was duly replied. On the admitted facts, I am of the view that the petitioner, who slept over his purported rights without batting his eyelid for more than 13 years, filed this writ petition. The law is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and a person who does not pursue his remedies diligently is not entitled to invoke such a discretionary remedy. The petitioner has not given any explanation whatsoever for not raising his claims all these years. On top of it, the petitioner not only accepted the initial appointment without any demur, but also never questioned the action of the respondents at every stage, when he was given promotions. On this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Even otherwise, a perusal of clarification, dated 19.01.2008 issued by respondent No.1 organisation shows that it has given cogent reasons on each of the aspects raised by the petitioner. The petitioner being in hibernation obviously woke up to institute this writ petition, which is purely speculative in nature. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.36894 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th DECEMBER, 2008. kvni