Abdul Moin, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Anupras Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 7.
(2.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order of promotion dated 04.06.2016 issued by the Director of R.M. Lohia Institute (as contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order of promotion dated 04.06.2016 issued by the Director of R.M. Lohia Institute (as contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition). (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party no.4 to decide the application dated 29.06.2019 and 18.07.2019 (as contained in Annexure No.6 & 7 to this petition). (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party no.4 to promote the petitioner from the date of promotion order dated 04.06.2016, and to pay the petitioner, salary admissible to A.N.S. in the RML Institute from the date of promotion order dated 04.06.2016 (as contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition). (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to conduct the independent inquiry with regard to promotion order dated 04.06.2016 passed by opposite party no.4 by which the opposite party no.4 filled the reserve category (Backlog post) by way of General Candidates, which were advertised vide Advertisement No.298/Bharti/RML IMS/2009, by General Category Candidates, at Dr. Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. (vi) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem just, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case; and (vii) Award the costs of the petition, in favour of the petitioner."
(3.) From perusal of the pleadings and the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the promotion order of private respondents dated 04.06.2016, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. The instant petition has been filed after a period of more than three years. The laches are sought to be explained on the ground that the petitioner had been representing to the respondents for redressal of her grievances and when no heed was paid on the said representations, she has approached this Court. In this regard, a specific plea has been taken in paragraphs 17 to 19 of the petition of the petitioner having submitted a representation dated 29.06.2019 for redressal of her grievances followed by a reminder dated 18.07.2019. Thus, the first representation for her alleged grievance i.e. of raising challenge to the promotion order dated 04.06.2016 has been given after more than three years.;