Birendra Dikshit, J. - (1.) THIS is a belated writ petition which is liable to be dismissed for latches on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner made representation wherein he claimed that he was entitled for appointment in view of his selection under the Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules 1947 (in short Rules) in the year 1983. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Administrative Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (in short 'High Court') by order dated 18 -11 -1989. The petitioner then made second representation which was rejected by order dated 2 -5 -1990, by the Respondent No. 2 Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court. After rejection of the second representation by Hon'ble the Chief Justice the petitioner preferred third representation which was rejected by the Administrate Judge by order dated 28 -8 -1990. This writ petition has been filed before this Court on 23 -11 -1990. The claim of petitioner was rejected by Administrative Judge of first representation on 18 -11 -89 and by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 2 -5 -1990. There do not appear any justification for petitioner to have made third representation. In case he was aggrieved, he could have approached this Court soon after rejection of his representation by Hon'ble, The Chief Justice on 2 -5 -1990. The petitioner has assented his right on the basis of selection of the year 1983 and the delay in approaching this Court after order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 2 -5 -1990 disentitles petitioner for any relief in discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even on merits the petitioner has not made out any case for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Selection of the petitioner is of the year 1983. Admittedly, petitioner was placed at serial No. 35 on the select list and could not be given appointment as vacancies were less and he was lower in the list of selected candidates. According to petitioner, he was appointed temporarily, within one year of his selection and, therefore, his name could not be removed under Rule 14(3) of the Rules from the register of selected candidates maintained under Rule 14(1) of the Rules. The assertion of respondent is that petitioner's appointment on the basis of which petitioner has set up present claim, was not temporarily but it was on leave vacancy for five days from 22 -4 -1984 to 26 -4 -1984, after which he was not given appointment. It has been specifically asserted in counter -affidavit that petitioner was not given appointment on regular vacancy and, therefore, his name was removed from the register. It has been stated in counter -affidavit that the petitioner got even the appointment of 22 -4 -1989 out of turn. In paragraph 11 of the counter -affidavit it has been asserted that the petitioner was given chance to work in leave vacancy for five days from 22 -4 -84 to 26 -4 -1984 which was not made strictly as required under rules. In paragraph 4 of Rejoinder affidavit the petitioner did not deny appointment out of turn and tried to set up his claim on the basis that he could not be made to suffer for his reason. In the absence of specific denial, the case set up in counter -affidavit that petitioner was not appointed strictly in accordance with seniority list has to be accepted. As petitioner was not offered appointment in strict order of seniority, which is a necessary requirement for continuance of name on the register under Rule 14(3), the District Judge Basti rightly removed the name of petitioner from the register of selected candidates maintained under Rule 14(1) of the Rules in the absence of getting appointment within one year.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for petitioner has tried to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel and relief on the decision of State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyuthwan : 1989 Suppl. SCC (1) 393 and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India : 1988 (1) SCC 86. The petitioner neither made necessary averments in writ petition to set up plea of promissory estoppel nor any ground has been taken to that effect and, therefore, petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the plea of promissory estoppel. Otherwise also, the plea of promissory estoppel is unsustainable as the petitioner's appointment was not strictly according to seniority which was also in the knowledge of petitioner the petitioner cannot invoke estoppel. Otherwise also, there is nothing on the record by which it could be said that petitioner altered his position to his detriment. It is admitted case of the party that petitioner appeared in subsequent selection of the year 1985 which shows that petitioner was aware about his true position and principle of promissory estoppel are not attracted to the facts of the case. The petitioner has tried to challenge the order of the Administrative Judge and of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for want of reasons. He has relied upon the case of M/s. Star Enterprises and others v. City Industrial Development Corporation : (1990) 3 SCC 280 in support of his submission. The case law cited is inapplicable to present case where petitioner filed a representation before Administrative Judge or the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court. In any case the reasons have come on the record of this case in counter affidavit. Otherwise also, the petitioner was at serial number 35 and candidates upto serial Nos. 17 have been given appointment. In any case the petitioner cannot be given any relief in this petition as he can not be allowed to by -pass about 17 candidates who are above him. Besides this aspect, subsequent selection has taken place in 1985 and other selection might also be there. For said reasons, it is not a fit case in which petitioner can be granted any discretionary relief. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine.;