- (1.) The writ petitioner claims seniority over and above the respondent no. 4 based upon a Circular bearing No. 33/VIII/2009-10 dated December 15, 2009 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that, the seniority is to be reckoned from the date of acquisition of the degree in Engineering with simultaneous reference to the date of joining the post of Assistant Engineer. The writ petitioner having joined the post of Assistant Engineer on promotion on September 29, 1996, that is, prior to the respondent no. 4 being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in 1999 and although the writ petitioner having acquired the degree of Engineering in 2008 later than that of the respondent no. 4 obtaining the degree in Engineering in 1989, since the writ petitioner had joined the post of Assistant Engineer prior to the respondent no. 4 he should be given seniority over the respondent no. 4.
(2.) It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner had made various representations to the Corporation authorities and that the Corporation authorities did not consider such representations. According to the writ petitioner he is senior to the respondent no. 4. He is suffering a continuing wrong due to the nonaction of the respondent authorities in not considering and deciding on his representations. It is submitted that, there is no delay in filing the writ petition. In any event, delay, if any, has not defeated the rights of the writ petitioner. In support of such contention reliance has been placed on (Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2008 8 SCC 445) and (Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors., 2013 1 SCC 353). It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that, the authorities concerned cannot deny the entitlement of the writ petitioner on the ground of administrative chaos. In support of such contention reliance has been placed on (B. Prabhakar Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 1985 Supp1 SCC 432).
(3.) The Corporation authorities are represented; so also is the respondent no. 4. On behalf of the Corporation authorities it is contended that the writ petitioner is guilty of inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. The seniority amongst the Engineers had been settled long back and on the basis of such settled seniority the respondent no. 4 had been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on September 9, 2010. Now if the seniority amongst such persons is directed to be redone, the same would lead to avoidable administrative chaos. The writ petitioner had notice of the developments. He did not challenge the same contemporaneously. He should not be allowed to challenge the settled position now. In view of such inordinate delay the writ petitioner is not entitled any relief. Reliance is placed on (B. S. Bajwa & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 1999 AIR(SC) 1510) and (Gian Singh Mann v. P. & H. High Court, 1980 AIR(SC) 1894) in support of such contention. On merits it is submitted that the appointment of the writ petitioner as an Assistant Engineer was not regularized. The writ petitioner had obtained the Engineering degree subsequent to that of the respondent no. 4 and, therefore, cannot claim seniority in terms of the Circular. The Circular cannot read in the manner as sought to be contended by the writ petitioner.;