- (1.) The petitioner is an employee of Dugrapur Steel Plant. He was promoted to E-5 Grade m 1995 in terms of the applicable promotion policy of the respondents. He was eligible for consideration for promotion to E-6 Grade after putting in 4 years service in E-5 Grade. It is claimed by the petitioner that though he had a fundamental right of being considered for promotion to E-6 Grade from 1999-onwards, he was not so considered and at the same time his juniors were promoted thereby resulting in his supersession. For the first time a representation dated 1.12.2004 was addressed by the petitioner to the Managing Director of Durgapur Steel Plant expressing his grievance. Since no action had been taken on the basis of such representation, the petitioner presented this petition before this Court on 19.1.2005 praying for, inter alia, the following relief: "a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and/ or their agents to give promotion and other benefits to the petitioner to E-6 Grade with effect from 30.6.1999 and also all consequential benefits attached thereto: b) A writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents and/or their agents to produce the records of the case before this Hon'ble Court So that conscionable justice may also be rendered;"
(2.) It is. not in dispute that subsequent to filing of the present petition, the petitioner has in fact been promoted to E-6 Grade.
(3.) It appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents that the petitioner was duly considered for promotion between the period 1999 and 2004. A comparative chart is set out indicating the marks obtained by the petitioner and the promotees on the basis of career progression report, qualification and length of service. All the promotees obtained more marks than the petitioner. In this petition there is no challenge to the promotion granted to the promotees who were junior to the petitioner insofar as the length of service is concerned. Since the petitioner has not challenged the decision of the respondents not to promote him during the period 1999 and 2005, it is not for the Court exercising power of judicial review to enter into the merit of such decision. The officers who had superseded him, it is also noted, have not been arrayed as respondents in the petition. Granting relief as claimed by the petitioner behind their back would unsettle settled matters. That apart, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of delay, and laches alone. He has referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271. It has besn held there as follows: "A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. In clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal- work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appellant.";