K K THAPAR - Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer, with effect from the date his juniors were considered and promoted. As stated in the petition, petitioner was appointed on 12.1.1960 as Sectional Officer on temporary basis till recommendation of a candidate by the Subordinate Service Selection Board, Punjab. Petitioner joined as such on 18.1.1960. Petitioner applied for this very post for regular appointment. He was recommended by the Subordinate Service Selection Board for appointment as Sectional Officer on 19.4.1960. Respondent No. 3, Mukhtiar Singh was appointed as Sectional Officer on 31.3.1960, and he joined as such on 25.4.1960. A dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 in regard to their inter se seniority. Initially, petitioner was declared senior to respondent No. 3, and thus, was promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Housing Cell, Chandigarh vide Government Memo No. 2622-INIG (II) 464 dated 7.1.1974. The petitioner worked as Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Housing Cell as well as Sub-Divisional Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab, Chandigarh. Later on, respondent No. 3 was declared senior to the petitioner and was promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that promotion of respondent No. 3 to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer and treating respondent No. 3 Senior to him, is absolutely wrong and illegal, and in spite of his having made a number of representations, no final decision in this regard has been taken by the Government.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and also respondent No. 3 have filed separate written statement. Respondents have admitted that initially the petitioner was declared senior to respondent No. 3 vide Government letter dated 30.10.1972. However, this decision was subject to the approval of the Government of India. Respondent No. 3 and one Ranjit Singh made representations against the petitioner, claiming that they were senior to the petitioner. Since the parent department of petitioner and respondent No. 3 was the Development Department, therefore, the matter was referred to that Department for deciding the matter regarding their inter se seniority. The Development Department vide letter dated 4.4.1977 declared respondent No. 3 senior to the petitioner on the ground that his name was recommended by the Subordinate Service Selection Board, earlier to the petitioner. This decision was conveyed to the petitioner and respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 2 vide Endst. No. E-I (E-245) 77/14863-66 dated 9.3.1977. Respondents have further stated that the petitioner, till date, has not challenged this order and he appears to have deliberately concealed this fact.

(3.) Having heard the counsel, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches and concealment of material facts. Respondent No. 3 was declared senior to the petitioner as far back as year 1977. Petitioner did not challenge this order and even in this petition which has been filed in the year 1991, this order has not been challenged Petitioner, in fact, has not even disclosed order dated 9.5.1977 whereby respondent No. 3 was declared senior to the petition. The seniority list issued in 1991 would not give fresh cause of action to the petitioner to file the present writ petition because this seniority list only depicts the seniority of petitioner and respondent No. 3, which had already become final in the year 1977, i.e. when order declaring respondent No. 3 as senior to the petitioner was passed.