- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER has prayed that by way of an appropriate order or direction, the notification dated 04.06.2001 incorporating the consideration of eligibility criteria as on 01.01.2000 be quashed and set aside being illegal and having no support of law or rules relating to the appointment. From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings, it appears that controversy in the present writ petition relates to determination of cadre strength for the post of Income Tax Inspector for the Financial Year 2000-01 for 173 posts out of restructured 188 posts on the basis of notification dated 04.06.2001. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), challenging the said determination on the basis of notification dated 04.06.2001. His Original Application has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.11.2010. From the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that Original Application, filed by petitioner, has been dismissed on the ground of delay/limitation. From Annexure A/1 dated 06.06.2008, appended with the Original Application, it is clear that representation filed by petitioner in this regard was rejected way back in the year 2002. The contents of letter dated 06.06.2008 are reproduced as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur No.CC/JPR/Admn./F-116A/2008-09/163 Dated 6th June, 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar Sir, 5. Sub: Representation for considering promotion to the post of Inspector in the DPC for the year 2000-01 and assigning due seniority in the cadre of Inspector- Shri Bhore Lal, Inspector- regarding- ****** I am directed to refer to your letter no.396 dated 27.05.2008 on the above subject. Shri Bhore Lal, Inspector had agitated this matter in the year 2002 also and at that point of time, his representation had been rejected. The official as well as his advocate had been informed of the same vide this office letter nos.163 dated 19.06.2002, 206 dated 11.07.2002 and 263 dated 08.08.2002. The OA no.498/2002 filed by Shri Radhey Shyam Verma on the same issue had been dismissed by the Hon'ble CAT. Since the facts of the case are the same, the representation of the official deserves to be rejected. You are requested to kindly intimate the official accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Mithlesh Kumar Jha) Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax (Hqrs.) for Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur" (emphasis supplied) 6. The petitioner in the present writ petition, instead of challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 29.11.2010, has challenged the notification dated 04.06.2001, whereas challenge in the Original Application was determination of cadre strength on the basis of notification dated 04.06.2001, meaning thereby challenge in the Original Application as well as in this writ petition, is one and the same. Original Application, filed in the year 2010, has been dismissed on the ground of delay/latches. The present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the same ground. The representation of petitioner was rejected way back in the year 2002, which is clear from the letter, quoted above, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition, at this stage.
(3.) IT is a settled law that even if there is no limitation prescribed for filing writ petition, it has to be filed as soon as possible. Delay of 10 years in filing the present writ petition has not been explained, properly/satisfactorily. In these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed being highly belated/ on the ground of latches. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. ;