- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the order dated 18.09.2013 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to entertain the writ petition (CWP No. 9974/2012), as filed by the petitioner in the year 2012, seeking to question the legality of an order dated 16.10.1995 issued by the Department of Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan, promoting certain incumbents selected by the departmental promotion committee on the post of Head of Department. It is the admitted fact situation that the petitioner -appellant, who joined the services on the post of Lecturer in the year 1960, was promoted on the post of Senior Lecturer on 27.10.1980. Though 6 posts of "Head of Department" were created in the Department of Technical Education in the year 1992 but it appears that until the appellant retired from service, i.e., on 31.07.1995, no promotions were made to this post of Head of Department. The promotions came to be made against the vacancies of the year 1995 -96 by the order dated 16.10.1995. The appellant did not challenge the said order dated 16.10.1995 for about good 17 years but then, attempted to maintain the challenge in the year 2012 with reference to the fact that by the order issued on 01.09.2010, the pay -scales of Teachers, Librarian and Physical Training Instructors of the Government Polytechnic College were revised and thereby, a huge difference was made between the Senior Lecturer and the Head of Department in the running pay -band.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge has found the petition suffering from gross delay and laches; and the appellant having failed to take up the proceedings at the relevant point of time. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the petition, inter alia, with the following observations: Indisputably, it was open for the petitioner to question the validity of the order impugned dated 16.10.95 when it was issued on all available grounds. However, the petitioner having accepted his supersession at the relevant time, he cannot be permitted to question the validity of said order at this stage merely on the ground that at the relevant time there was no much difference in the pay of Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department, however, now subsequent to revision of pay scale by order dated 1.9.10, the pay difference has increased substantially. In the considered opinion of this court, the subsequent revision of the pay scale in no manner can be considered to be revival of the cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner at the relevant time. The explanation for delay in assailing the order furnished by the petitioner is not found to be plausible and therefore, cannot be accepted.
(3.) IT is sought to be contended that until there was not much of the difference between the pay -scales of Senior Lecturer and Head of Department, the appellant had no cause of action to put a challenge to the order dated 16.10.1995 and he made the challenge when such difference in pay -scales was brought about in the year 2010. We are afraid, the submissions do not make out a case for entertaining a grossly belated writ petition; and that too against an order of promotion issued more than two months after the retirement of the appellant. The difference in the pay -scales of Senior Lecturer and Head of Department, if at all ordered with subsequent revision of pay -scales by the order dated 01.09.2010, would not lead to revival of cause of action, if any, that had accrued to the petitioner at the relevant point of time.;