- (1.) THE petitioner by way of this writ petition has sought two fold reliefs (1) seniority on the post of Assistant/accountant from 30. 8. 76 and (2) promotion/appointment on the post of Section Officer on 34% merit quota of direct recruitment under advertisement dated 15. 9. 1983 (Ann. 1 ).
(2.) FACTS in brief relevant for controversy of seniority are thus. The petitioner entered in services of the University of Rajasthan (respondent) on the post of LDC in 1961 whereafter undoubtedly he was promoted as UDC and confirmed. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant by order dated 30. 8. 76 (though its copy was not filed by the petitioner but by the respondent alongwith minutes of the Selection Committee) - a bare perusal of which shows that though the petitioner was promoted as Assistant on the recommendation of the DPC but purely on temporary basis only for six months or till duly selected candidates join as Assistant/accountant, and on which post he continued but was put on probation w. e. f. 28. 6. 78 which ultimately resulted in confirmation on the post of Assistant/accountant on 28. 12. 1978 vide order dated 5. 1. 79. Provisional Seniority list of Asstt. /acctt. was issued on 20. 9. 80 against which the petitioner represented on 3. 6. 83 alleging his seniority having wrongly been assigned. Another representation was made on 10. 3. 84 for wrong assignment of seniority but also for appointment on the post of Section Officer. Again, on 3. 4. 84 the University issued provisional seniority list of Asstt. /acctt. but as per the petitioner, wrongly assigning his seniority so again it resulted into his representation on 12. 4. 84 followed by reminder on 8. 1. 86 so also for appointment since 3. 12. 83 as Section Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that as per letter dated 29. 1. 86 (Ann. 10) of the University his representation was pending consideration and awaiting decision thereon but it was not communicated so the petitioner sent reminder on 5. 1. 90 (Ann. 16) on which rejection was conveyed by the University on 21. 1. 91 (Ann. 20 ). A brief resume of facts relevant for controversy as to the promotion on the post of Section Officer on 34% merit quota. The University admittedly issued an advertisement for nine posts of Section Officer against 345 merit quota (out of which seven posts were of General Category while one for SC and another for ST candidates ). Since the petitioner belonged to General Category, he applied for that category post of Section Officer claiming himself eligible and qualified as B. A. & M. A. besides claiming his CR as outstanding or very good throughout apart from more than sufficient experience (as provided in Ann. 2 - merit criteria i. e. Syndicate Resolution No. 31 dated 23. 5. 80 and 35 of 5. 4. 1981 given so also of training on 24. 5. 80 having acquired merit No. 2 with cash award ). Admittedly the interviews were held by the Selection Committee on 26th & 27. 12. 1983 for selection under 34% direct recruitment merit quota. On 31. 12. 83 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the University issued order appointing seven meritorious employees (holding posts of Asstt. /acctt.) as Section Officer but since the petitioner was found lesser meritorious having merit at No. 9 and posts of general category were only seven, he was not appointed and promoted as Section Officer on merit quota under the impugned order dated 31. 12. 83, against which he had consistently made representation despite having been rejected from time to time but he approached this Court by way of this writ petition for promotion on merit quota after seven years on 13. 3. 1991. At the very threshold, I must hasten to observe that the petitioner though claimed seniority as well as promotion but has intermingled the controversy by misjoinder of issues having distinct and irrelevant consideration to each others, inasmuch as relief or issue of promotion raised being of merit quota has no nexus or relation with another issue of seniority herein, having different criteria for consideration as to the process under the University of Rajasthan Employees (Non-Teaching) Recruitment Rules, 1974 (for brevity the Recruitment Rules ). Admittedly, the challenge to the impugned order dated 31. 12. 83 relates to the promotion having been considered by the Selection Committee of the University for the posts of Section Officer under advertisement dated 15. 9. 83 (Ann. 1), as per which these posts being of 34% merit quota were advertised inviting applications for direct recruitment of the University's employees holding posts of Asstt. /acctt. and it has no nexus with seniority of any of them. Hence, for disposal of this writ petition, these two issues being distinct to each others are being dealt with separately. First of all, I advert to the issue of promotion on 34% merit quota. But, here I firstly think it proper to consider objection of the University as to the delay & laches. So, let me have a resume of decisions in this regard cited by Mr. Sharma.
(3.) IN Administrator of U. T. Daman & Diu vs. R. D. Valand (1) there was belated application for promotion; applicant was reverted from the post of Section Officer (Junior Engineer) but again promoted to that post in the year 1979 w. e. f. 28. 9. 1972; representation made in the year 1985 for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer w. e. f. August 1977 when some persons junior to him had been promoted, was rejected and further representation was also rejected and in such circumstances, application filed by him before the CAT in 1990 was held time barred by the Apex Court holding that making successive representation was inconsequential. The Apex Court observed as under:- " IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was not justified in putting the clock back by more than 15 years. The Tribunal fell into patent error in brushing aside the question of limitation by observing that the respondent has been making representation from time to time and as such the limitation would not come in his way. " In Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India (2), the petitioner challenged his termination after 22 years without offering any explanation for such delay and, therefore, as held, his challenge cannot be allowed merely because others similarly dismissed had been reinstated inasmuch as refusal of relief cannot be said to be discriminatory. In Ratan Chandra Sammanta vs. Union of India (3) the Apex Court held that a writ is issued by the Court in favour of a person who has some right. And not for sake of roving enquiry leaving scope for manoeuvring. Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In absence of any fresh cause of action or any legislation a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time looses his right as well. It was a case of casual labourer employed between 1964 to 1969 and retrenched between 1975 to 1979 but approached the Court of law after a lapse of period of more than 15 years, therefore, the Apex Court observed that in case the prayer of the petitioners is accepted then it would result in depriving a host of others who in the meantime have become eligible and are entitled to claim to be employed. ;