Prakash Chandra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Overseer) in Indo- Tibet Border Police Force (ITBP) on 30.03.1988. On 03.06.1991, he applied for the post of Inspector/Subedar (Overseer) through an open competition. He was selected and he submitted his technical resignation on 2015:DHC:8424-DB W.P.(C) No.9434/2015 Page 2 03.12.1991. After he joined the services as an Inspector with ITBP, the seniority list of Inspectors was issued on 01.07.1997 wherein he was shown as

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Sl.No.6 and in the in the seniority list dated 01.01.2007, he was shown at   │
│ Sl.No.2. He was promoted as regular Assistant Commandant (Engineer           │
│ Cadre) on 30.05.2007. Seniority list of Assistant Commandant was issued on   │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

2. The petitioner has claimed correction in the seniority list of the year 1997 wherein his seniority was fixed at Sl.No.15 on his joining the ITBP as an Inspector through an open examination. As is clear from the above facts after 01.07.1997, the respondents had issued several seniority lists dated 31.07.2000, 31.01.2003, 01.01.2005, 01.01.2007, 01.01.2008, 01.01.2009, 31.07.2010 & 01.01.2014. It is pertinent to mention here that pursuant to those seniority lists, the petitioner was given two promotions, first as regular Assistant Commandant on 30.05.2007 and then as Deputy Commandant on 09.05.2012. This shows that the respondents had given the promotions to W.P.(C) No.9434/2015 Page 4 various personnel including the petitioner based on such seniority lists. Although the petitioner had the occasion to challenge the said seniority list immediately when it was circulated, he did nothing except making one representation dated 31.07.1997 which was rejected on 04.09.1997; a second representation dated 03.04.2003 after the circulation of seniority list dated 31.01.2003 was later made. This representation was also rejected on 10.09.2003. His third representation was against the seniority list of Assistant Commandant dated 01.01.2009 which was also rejected. This clearly shows that the petitioner had not approached this court within reasonable time. He is challenging the seniority list of the year 1997 after almost 18 years. The claim of the petitioner is highly belated and no explanation is coming forward what to say a reasonable explanation for this delay. All the seniority lists showing the exact position of the petitioner had been circulated and were in the knowledge of the petitioner. He however chose to keep quiet. The present writ petition suffers with delay and laches. The petitioner had contended that he had been making the representations and therefore it cannot be said that he had not been challenging his seniority. It is a settled position of law as held by the Supreme Court in case of S.S.Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 10 that repeated W.P.(C) No.9434/2015 Page 5 representations does not in any manner defeat the operation of doctrine of laches.

3. It is also pertinent to note here that any change in the list issued in the year 1997 would have the effect of disturbing the subsequent seniority lists issued by the respondents all these years and would also have the effect of disturbing not only the seniority of several personnel but also promotions based on such seniority, which in turn was premised on the seniority list dated 31.07.1997. Intervention therefore would be unjustified as it would jeopardize settled seniority positions of third parties.

4. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the petition suffers from delay and laches. It is consequently dismissed.

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) OCTOBER 06, 2015 rb