(1.) The petitioner impugns the order dated January 25,1986 by which he was revered from the post of Zilledar to that of Assistant Revenue Clerk. The challenge is two-fold. Firstly, it has been contended that the order of reversion having been withdrawn by the department in respect of certain persons who are junior to the petitioner, their failure to pass a similar order in respect of the petitioner is discriminatory. Secondly, it is urged that the order of reversion was passed only on the ground that the direct recruits had to be appointed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the direct recruits were already holding posts falling to their share and as such, the petitioner could not have been reverted to make room for them.
(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the claim made by the petitioner has been controverted. It has been pointed out that under the rules, only 40% posts have to be filled up by promotion. The cadre of Zilledars consists of 139 posts. The share of the promotees comes to 56 posts. They are already occupying posts beyond their share. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the orders of reversion in respect of various persons mentioned by the petitioner in para 12 of the writ petition were withdrawn on account of the directions given by this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 162 of 1986 and not suo motu by the Department.
(3.) Admittedly, the order of reversion was passed on January 25, 1986. The petitioner had filed this writ petition on March 5, 1993. The writ petition, was, thus filed after a lapse of more than seven years. Even a suit filed after such a long delay would be barred by limitation. Mr. Sood, however, submits that the cause of action had accrued to the petitioner on account of the fact that the orders of reversion in respect of various persons junior to the petitioner had been withdrawn on July 25, 1992 and December 24,1992. The explanation given by the learned counsel cannot be accepted. These two orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-3 and P-4 with the writ petition, had been passed by the Department in pursuance to the judgment of the High Court in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1384 of 1984 and 162 of 1986. It is clear that various persons who had been reverted by the Department at different times including those who had been reverted in the year 1986 along with the petitioner had approached this court through the above mentioned two petitions. This court had and the order of reversion to be filled and had consequently allowed the writ petitions. The Department had to implement the directions given by this court. It did so. The orders passed by the department in pursuance to the directions of this Court came to be said to, furnish any cause of action to the petitioner. In fact, the cause of action had accrued to him on January 25,1986 when the orders of reversion had been passed. He could have challenged it at that time. Those who did, got the necessary relief. The petitioner who slept, cannot be now permitted to agitate the matter after the lapse of such a long delay. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhailal Bhai and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 1006it would be proper for the writ court to decline to interfere in a case where a triable issue of limitation arises. In the present case, the delay is patent. The suit for challenge to the order would be clearly barred by limitation. In such a situation, the writ petition cannot be entertained.