1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.175 OF 2010 Subhash Sawan Machare : Petitioner V/s. Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for the petitioner. Mr.G.H.Keluskar for respondent no.1. Mr.S.N.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.2. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : JUNE 07, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respective respondents. 2. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no.1 Corporation had no legal right or authority to issue the order dated 1.1.2000 which is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1985 issued by the respondent no.1. It is contended that by virtue of the said order, the legal right of the petitioner to be promoted to the post of Asstt. Municipal Commissioner in accordance with the 2 Government Resolution dated 17.10.1985 is taken away. It is, therefore, contended that the order dated 1.1.2000 issued by the Municipal Commissioner is bad in law and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 3. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was holding the post of Tahsildar prior to the said post was re-designated as Administrative Officer in the year 1998. It is contended that the eligibility criterion for promotion to the post of Asstt. Municipal Commissioner as envisaged in the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1995 was that the candidate should serve as Tahsildar or a post equivalent thereto for a period of five years. It is contended that the petitioner was fulfilling this eligibility criterion. However, in view of the order dated 1.1.2000 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, the right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the post of Asstt. Municipal Commissioner was taken away and, therefore, the order dated 1.1.2000 is bad in law. 4. We have considered the contention canvassed by the learned counsel. Before we consider the issue on merit, at the outset, we want to observe that the petition suffers from delay and laches. Even according to the petitioner, the petitioner was aware that he was due for promotion to the post of Asstt. Municipal Commissioner in the year 2000. The 3 petitioner was also well aware that the authorities did not consider his claim for promotion to the said post. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was making representations for redressal of his grievance before the competent authority since 2002 till the filing of the petition, which is filed in the year 2010. It is no doubt true that delay in approaching the Court by itself in all cases may not be fatal to the petitioner. However, the Court cannot ignore the fact that it should not be unreasonable and inordinate. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was entitled to make a representation to the authorities concerned for redressal of his grievance. However, it is difficult for us to agree with the contention of the petitioner that this is a good ground for condoning the delay in approaching the Court. We have already made it clear that inordinate delay without proper and specific justification cannot be condoned. 5. We further want to express that the post of Tahsildar as per the contention canvassed by the learned counsel was re-designated in the year 1998 and, therefore, we cannot turn nelson’s eye to the other circumstances such as, on the basis of changed criteria, vacancies for the post of Asstt. Commissioner ought to have been filled in by the authorities. It is in such peculiar situation when it is not possible for us to put the clock back in time, the delay caused in approaching the Court by 4 the petitioner, in our view, is inordinate and, therefore, cannot be condoned. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition suffers from delay and laches. The same is dismissed. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)