(1.) IF only the claim of the petitioner was to be accepted, he would have to be brought above those 29 others some of whom were still in service and those having not been joined as parties to the petition, the petitioner's claim was incapable of being allowed. The seniority -cum -gradation list of Assistants as on 1.6.1977 shows Amamani at No.4, Pateria at No.9 in the permanent cadre while the petitioner is shown at No.5 in the list of temporary Assistants (not confirmed till then).
(2.) IT is crystal clear from the pleadings that the root source of controversy generated in the year 1965 when the respondent University called for the consent of the incumbents placed at the outlying colleges for moving on transfer/promotion to Jabalpur. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner had denied such consent resulting into foregoing of his claim while according to the petitioner no such consent was called for from him and definitely he had not denied the offer. This stand was taken by the petitioner in his rejoinder to the respondent's application for taking additional facts on record, and the University in its additional reply to the rejoinder came out with a stand that the petition having been filed belatedly, it was not possible for the University to trace out such old records and place the same before the Court.
(3.) DELAY and laches have always been frowned upon by writ Courts and held enough to disentitle relief to the writ seekers, more so in the disputes relating to seniority and promotion. Eighteen years delay in K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh (AIR 1986 SC 2086),12 years delay in Amrit Lal Berry and others v. Collector of Central Excise Central Revenue and others, (AIR 1975 SC 538), 11 years delay in State of Orissa v. P. Samantray (AIR 1976 SC 2617) and inordinate delay and latches generally in G.C. Gupta and others v. N.K. Pandey and others (AIR 1988 SC 654), were considered enough to hold the respective petitioners therein disentitled to the grant of relief prayed for therein.