K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- (a) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature 6f a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Registrar to produce the order whereby the select list prepared in the year 1978 was altered and after perusal thereof quash the said order by a writ of Certiorari, (b) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to restore the select list (Annexure '1' to the petition) prepared and issued in the year 1978, (c) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to place the name of the petitioner No. 1 at Serial No. 23 and that of the petitioner No. 2 at serial No. 25 in the seniority and select list, (d) issue a suitable writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and to, (e) award the costs of the petition to the petitioners.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details a selection list in the year 1978 was prepared wherein the petitioners figure at serial Nos. 23 and 25. A copy of the select list and original seniority has been attached with the writ petition as annexure '1'. According to the petitioners sometime in the year 1982 the select list prepared in the year 1978 was changed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and the petitioners were placed at serial Nos. 57 and 59. It has been stated that the persons who were issued appointments after the appointments of the petitioners have been made senior to the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 made a representation to the opposite party No. 1 as is evident from annexure '2' dated 29-4-1982. Through the annexure '3' dated 15-7-1982 the petitioner has been informed that his representation had been considered and rejected. It appears that on 17-7-1982, the peitioner No. 1 made another representation. Thereafter on 17-8-1984 again the petitioner No. 1 made a representation which has been attached as annexure '5' to the writ petition. On 25-1-1989 the petitioner No. I again sent a reminder which is annexure '6' attached with the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition on 7-7-1989 and have prayed for the reliefs mentioned above. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged in the present case Therefore, we are deciding the claim of the petitioners finally at the stage of admission. In our opinion, there are three obstacles in the way of the petitioner for getting the reliefs prayed for. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the earlier list of 1978 was modified by the order of the Court dated 21-8-1980 as the provisions of Rule 12 (4) of Rules of 1976 were not followed. Vide paragraph No. 18 of the rejoinder affidavit the petitioners have replied the contents of paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit. Though in paragraph 18 of the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioners have characterised the order dated 21-8-1980 as illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. But the petitioners have failed to amend the writ petition and they have not prayed for quashing the order dated 21-8-1980. In our opinion, if the order dated 21-8-1980, is not quashed, the petitioners cannot get the reliefs claimed above. The petitioners appear to have accepted the existence of the order dated 21-8-1980 by which the earlier select list of 1978 was modified, yet they have not' prayed for quashing that order. When the existence of the order dated 21-8-1980 is accepted a relevant question arises/Whether the petitioners have approached this Court within the reasonable time. There is no explanation on behalf of the petitioners as to why the order dated 21-8-1980 was not challenged within the reasonable time. More so, even by this date, the petitioners have not amended the writ petition and have not prayed for quashing the order dated 21-8-1980, therefore, the present petition is defective and the petitioners cannot get the reliefs claimed so long as the order dated 21-8-1980 subsists.
(3.) A perusal of annexure '5' indicates that a large number of persons have been placed senior to the petitioners and they have not been impleaded in the persent writ petition, therefore, we think granting of the claimed reliefs to the petitioners would adversely affect the persons who have placed senior to the petitioners in the modified list as back as the year 1980. Its would not be sound exercise of dis creation in entertaining the writ petition of the petitioners at present as necessary persons are not before this Court. Looking from this angle we find that this writ petition is defective and the petitioners cannot get the reliefs claimed behind back of the persons whose interests have crept in during the long period. In the facts and the circumstances of this case, we are not satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were diligently and bona fide pursuing their remedy through the representations, therefore, the delay and latches on their part should not be taken note of and the petitioners should be granted the relief claimed. In our opinion, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches and delay Our attention has been drawn to the ruling reported in AIR lv84 SC 1527 G. P. Doval v. Chief Secretary Government of U. P. and it has been contended that after 12 years their Lordships of the Supreme Court granted reliefs to the petitioners, therefore, the delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in the present case should not stand in the way of the petitioners getting the reliefs claimed. The facts and the circumstances involved in the reported ruling are quite different. In the reported ruling the respondents had not finalised the seniority list for a period of more then 12 years, therefore, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had granted reliefs to the petitioners. Whereas in the present case the select list was modified in the year 1980 and the order of the year 1980 has not been properly challenged even as yet and no relief has been claimed for quashing that order, therefore, we think that the petitioners are guilty of latches and they cannot derive any benefit out of the ruling referred to on their behalf. It would be necessary to mention the relevant decision of their Lordships in AIR 1970 SC 472, Ravindra Nath Bosh v. Union of India as well as the decision reported in the same volume at p. 769 Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports we think that the petitioners in the present case are not entitled to the reliefs claimed on the ground of latches on their part.;