IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.10122 of 2008 Date of decision : May 16, 2011 Pritam Chand …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was appointed as JBT on 18th June, 1970. It appears that at the time when the petitioner was appointed, there were no promotional avenues for JBTs. In the year 1986, some posts of Head Teachers and Centre Head Teachers were created. Recruitment and Promotion Rules for those posts were framed in the year 1987. Posts of Head Teachers were to be filled by promotion from amongst JBTs, with ten years service. 3. Petitioner’s case is that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, he was entitled to be appointed against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes. His contention is that in case he was considered for appointment against a reserved post, in the year 1987, when promotions as Head Teachers were made, for the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… first time, he being a senior JBT of reserved category, would have been promoted, but the respondents did not consider him for promotion against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes and promoted him as a General Category Head Teacher only in the year 1996. 4. An Original Application was filed, by the petitioner, before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking promotion to the post of Head Teacher, against a post reserved for Schedule Tribe candidate, w.e.f. 1987. On the abolition of the said Tribunal, the matter has come to this Court and re-registered as CWP(T). 5. Cause of action accrued to the petitioner in the year 1987, when according to him he was eligible for promotion against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes. He was promoted as Head Teacher in the year 1996, by being treated as General Category candidate. Initially, when the petitioner was appointed, in the year 1970, as JBT, he did not disclose that he belonged to Schedule Tribe. It was in the year 1980 that he submitted a certificate to the authorities, per which he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner has not explained long delay of about 20 years, in approaching judicial forum, for redressal of his grievance. Thus, the petition is bad, on account of delay and latches. Therefore, the same is dismissed. May 16, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J