R SANTHOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is presently working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Health & Family Welfare Department. When vacancies in the category of U.D.Clerks arose in the Department in the year 1999, the petitioner was temporarily promoted as U.D.Clerk with effect from 22.2.2000 as per Ext.P1 order. The contention of the petitioner is that he was given temporary promotion taking into account the fact that his seniors were not test qualified at that point of time. Subsequently, Ext.P2 order dated 14.9.2001 was passed by the third respondent whereby the petitioner was reverted to the post of L.D.Clerk and the fourth respondent was promoted in his place. I do not think it necessary to deal with the contentions any further on account of the admitted position that despite such reversion and the consequential promotion of the fourth respondent, the petitioner had not called in question the said action in any legal proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as U.D.Clerk with effect from 3.6.2005 as per Ext.P4 order dated 18.6.2005. It is contended that subsequent to his reversion, the petitioner had approached the authorities by filing representations. However, no action was taken thereon. It is a fact that despite such alleged inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner had not chosen to resort to any appropriate proceedings to challenge his reversion as also the consequential promotion of the fourth respondent, within a reasonable time. Subsequently, Ext.P5 representation dated 6.7.2005 was submitted by the petitioner before the third respondent for fixation of his seniority in the cadre of U.D.Clerk. It is contended that without considering his objections, a preliminary gradation list of U.D.Clerks as on 30.4.2003 was published as per Ext.P6 order dated 15.10.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has submitted Exts.P7 and P8 representations before the third respondent. Ignoring the sarne, Ext.P9 preliminary gradation list of U.D.Clerks as on 23.6.2003 was published. The petitioner filed Ext.P10 appeal against the same, on 21.6.2008. According to him, despite the receipt of Ext.P10 appeal, no action was taken thereon by the third respondent. In the said circumstance he has preferred Ext.P11 representation dated 18.6.2011 before the third respondent. It is alleging inaction on the part of the respondents on Ext.P 11 that this Writ Petition has been filed. A scanning of the contentions raised by the petitioner would reveal that despite his reversion to the post L.D.Clerk and the consequential promotion of the fourth respondent as per Ext.P2 dated 14.9.2001, the petitioner has not challenged the said action in any legal proceedings. In other words, the petitioner accepted the same without any demur. It is obvious that the fourth respondent was promoted as per Ext.P2 order and the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of U.D.Clerk only much later, that is, with effect from 3.6.2005. It is only thereafter that the petitioner approached the respondents with a prayer to re-fix his seniority in the cadre of U.D.Clerk. It is to be noted that by that time, the fourth respondent had completed about four years service in the cadre of U.D.Clerk based on his promotion as per Ext.P2. That apart, even thereafter, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the promotion of the fourth respondent after reverting him to the post of L.D Clerk, as per Ext.P2. Without a successful challenge against the said action ie., his reversion and consequential promotion of the fourth respondent, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he is entitled to get seniority re-fixed in the cadre of UD.Clerk that too, above the fourth respondent. In this context, it is to be noted that even in this Writ Petition, there is no challenge against Ext, P2 order whereby the fourth respondent was promoted after reverting the petitioner. The fourth respondent has been continuing in the post of U.D.Clerk based on the promotion granted as per Ext.P2 dated 14.9.2001. Considering the fact that the petitioner was promoted to the said post only as per Ext.P4 order dated 18.6.2005 with effect from 3.6.2005, the petitioner cannot legally raise any grievance against the fixation of his seniority below the fourth respondent. I am of the view that the action on the part of the petitioner is nothing but indirect attempt to assail the promotion granted to the fourth respondent, after a long lapse of 10 years. In the said circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for re-fixation of seniority in the cadre of U.D.Clerk above the fourth respondent cannot be countenanced. The petitioner is accused of delay and laches and it is a fit case wherein the doctrine of limitation should apply. The inordinate delay in the matter would render the claim of the petitioner stale and the doctrine of laches/limitation has to be applied to reject the said stale claim in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, 2008 8 SCC 648. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. There is no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.