R.L.Gulati, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by four petitioners. All of them are Executive Engineers in the Irrigation Department of the Public Works Division of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 passed out from the University of Roorkee in the years 1951 and occupied the first two places in order of merit in the list of successful candidates. Similarly, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 passed from the Roorkee University in the year 1952 and they occupied the third and 4th places in the merit list of the successful candidates of that year. According to the practice then prevailing all the four petitioners were entitled to be appointed to the posts which were called the "guaranteed posts". Guaranteed posts were posts reserved for candidates passing out of the Roorkee University and occupying the first four places in the merit list. Thus the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Assistant Engineers on December 24, 1952 and January 1, 1953 respectively. Similarly, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as Assistant Engineers on November 3, 1953 and November 5, 1953 respectively. The appointments of the petitioners were temporary. The petitioners have stated that their appointments were substantive on a temporary post but this has been denied in the counter-affidavit of Sri K. N. Mathur, Assistant Secretary to the Government, U. P. Irrigation Department. According to him, the petitioners's appointments were purely temporary, which were liable to be terminated on one month's notice. The only advantage to the appointees in the guaranteed posts was that such appointments were made without reference to the Public Service Commission and they were entitled to seniority over other candidates of their batch.
(2.) On April 9, 1953, the Government published a list of Assistant Engineers who had been confirmed. The names of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear in that list and they claim that they were entitled to be confirmed in that year. Similarly a second list of confirmed officers was published on 25th February, 1955. This list did not contain the name of petitioner Nos. 2 and 4, who also claim that they were entitled to be confirmed in that year. A third list appeared on 12th December, 1956. This list contained the names of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The fourth list was published on 27th February, 1958 and this contained the names of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 should have been confirmed in the list of confirmed Assistant Engineers published on 9th April, 1953 and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in the list published on 25th April, 1955. In the counter-affidavit of Shri K. N. Mathur, it has been explained that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for confirmation only when they had put in the necessary service during the period of probation and had passed various departmental examinations etc. and that they had no claim, merely on the basis of their appointments on the guaranteed posts, to be included in the list of 1953 and 1955. In paragraph 37 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Mathur it has further been stated that seniority list indicating the position of petitioners 1 to 4 vis-a-vis other Assistant Engineers was issued on 26th June, 1961, which was prepared according to the principle adopted by the Government in consultation with the Public Service Commission and a final reply Was sent to the petitioners through the Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 4th September, 1963 (Annexure 'M' to the writ petition). Now the prayer in this petition is that so far as the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned their names should be included in the list of Assistant Engineers confirmed on 9th April, 1953 and those of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in the list, published on 25th April, 1955, and the interse seniority fixed on 26th June, 1961 be revised.
(3.) This prayer cannot be granted for the simple reason that the petitioners are guilty of inordinate delay in approaching this Court. The petition was moved on May 19, 1969 i.e. after a period of 15 years from 9th April, 1953 and about 14 years from the 25th April, 1955. The petitioners made a representation in 1956-57. This representation was finally turned down on September, 4, 1963. Thus a period of over six years had elapsed even when the representation of the petitioners was finally rejected by the Government before the present petition was moved. The petitioners have stated that they had sent a fresh representation in July/August, 1968 and a reminder on 31st March, 1969. This representation, according to them, is still pending. In the first instance, there is no explanation as to why a second representation was delayed by a period of four years and secondly no copy of the representations has been filed to show on what grounds the fresh representation was made. The contention, of the opposite parties that the fresh representation was sent merely to explain the delay thus does not appear to be without force.;