'/4'"'<:- HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASI D.B.: HON'BLESHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON'BLESHRI JUSTICET.P.SHARMA APPELLANT RESPONDENTS W.A.No.03/2009 M.D.Shrivastava, Aged about 68\ years, S/o. Late SrrChhail BihariV'^ Shrivastava, R/o. B-37 Kranti \| Nagar, BUaspur, District Bilaspur Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2 Director, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalya, Pension Bada, Raipur(CG) 3. District Education Officer, Composite Building, Bilaspur(CG) ,4. Chief Executive Of&cer, Zila Panchayat, Collectorate Buildmg, BUaspur (CG) WRIT APPEAL UNDERSECTION 2i'l> OF tHE C.G. HIGH COURT(APPEAL TO DIVISION BESfCHl ACT, 2006 Appearance : Shri Sanjay Patel, Counsel for the appellant/petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.2&3. ORALORDER (06.02.2009) The following order of the Court was passed by SUNILKUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on adinission. The appellant/petitioner challenges the validity of order dated 12.11.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6297/2008, whereby, his writ petition fded under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. . -a-- W.A.NO. 03/2009 ({3 The appellant was appointed as Upper Division TeaGheF on 9th October 1961; The gradation Ust was published on 1.4.1996 buf nanae of the appellant was not mentioned in the gradation list. According to the appeUant, this was a mistake on the part ofthe State.authorides, due to which he could not be considered for pronlotion to the post of Principal which was done vide order dated 01.01.1999. The second promotion list was also published on 07.04.1999, but, his case was notconsidered at the tiine of second promotion also on account of nOn-niendoning of his name in the seniority list which was again a mistake on the part of the respondents. The appellant preferred a representation for redressal of his grievance on 28.1.1999 and thereafter he niade rnany represent.adons but they were not responded and ultimately the appeUantretired on 31st July 2002. After retirement, the appellant again inade representadon and when nothing was done till the month ^ of October2008, he ffled W.P.(S) No.6297/2008. Learned single Judge observed that since the year 1999 till the date of retirement on 31st July 2002, the appellant did not filed any petitioh and even after the retirement ih the year 2002, he filed the instant pedtion iri the month pf October 2008, therefore, there was inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and the pedtibn was liable to be dismissed on this coiint. Accordingly, the writ pedtion was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant was making repeated represehtadons and he was waiting for a favourable reply but the respondents did not cohsider the representations arid the time elapsed in the aforesaid manner. In State of Orissa Vs. Sn^Pyarin'whcifl Sdmafttarag & Others, AIR 1976 SC 2617, theApex Court, relying on the decision rendered in the matter of Rabindra Nath Bose Vs. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 470 held that on rejeGtion of the representation of the petitioner agajnst his supersession by his junior in select list, the appellant/petitioner heldsome eleven years to go by before fUing the writ petition for quashiag that list and in that Situation, the petition wqs liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplaihed delay. The Apex Court further held that making 6f r'liii:1 i •^ W.A.NO. 03/2009 % repeated representation after rejection of orie representation cannot be said to be a satisfactory explanation of delay. In State of Orissa Vs. Sri Pf/anmohan Sumantuincts & Others, (19771 3 SCC 396, the petition by the Govemment servant, challenging seniority list was filed after 11 years of rejection of his representation and no satisfactory explanation for the delay was given. The Apex Court held that-making of repeated representations, after the rejection of one representation could not be held to be a satisfactory explanation of the delay, therefore, the High Court should have rejected the petition on this preluninary groi.md. In Unlon oflndia. & Another Vs. S.S.Kothiyal & Others, (199818 SCC 682. the respondent was denied promotion as Deputy Corumaridant in 1970 and again in 1971, but waspromoted in the year 1972. He was further promoted as Commandant in 1975. His three representations against his non-promotion as Depuly Corrunandant were rejected respectively in June 1971, November 1974 and July 1977. The writ petition was filed in the High Court in the yearl978. The Apex Court held that the writ petition was highly belated and therefore, the High Coi.trt shoiild not have entertained the petitioh. In the present case, according to the appeUant, he was denied fu-st promotion on 01.01.1999 and again was not considered on 07.04.1999. Therefore, the cause of action arose in favour of the appeUant in. the year 1999. The appellant made many representations till he retired on 31st July 2002. In this period, the appellant did not initiate any legal action. Even after the retirement, he again preferred representations and ultimately, this writ petition was filed in the year 2008, Therefore, the action of the appellant was highly belated and making repeated representations by the appellant after arising of the cause of action in the year 1999, would not explain the delay in filing the writ petition and the leamed Single Judge has rightly held that ^ there was inordmate delay and the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latehes. For the foregoing discussions, we do not find any force in this aiipeal. \/ lil 1 f! --t\- S( W.A.NO. 03/2009 The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge sf Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Suguna