K. David vs A.P. Pollution Control Board and Others

S.R. Nayak, J.—The writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches as rightly opined by the learned single Judge. The appellant is the writ petitioner and he filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:

"...the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus-

directing the respondents 1 and 2 to accord seniority to the petitioner over respondents 3 to 5 in the category of Superintendent by granting a notional date of promotion taking into account of petitioner''s eligibility and

consider promoting the petitioner to the next higher categories of Accounts Officer and Administrative Manager;

Repatriate respondents 6 and 7 in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 180 Environment, Forest, Energy, Science and Technology Department dated 26.12.1996 and Rule 15 of Rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated 1.1.1979 as they are not qualified, and pass such other order or orders."

The facts relevant to the decision-making be noted briefly as under: The petitioner made entry into the service of A.P. Pollution Control Board (for short, the Board) as L.D.C. on 6.3.1982; he was subsequently promoted to the post of U.D.C. on 14.7.1987, as Superintendent on 14.5.1997 and as Assistant Manager on 21.1.2000. By the time the petitioner made entry into the service of Board on 6.3.1982, respondents 3 to 5, who were also initially directly recruited by the Board as L.D.Cs., were further promoted to the post of U.D.Cs., Assistant Managers etc. It appears, respondents 6 and 7 were initially the Government employees and on constitution of the Board, they were deputed to serve the Board. Further, the services of the 6th respondent were absorbed permanently in the Board on 9.5.3994 whereas the services of the 7th respondent were absorbed on 22.5.1992, and after their absorption into the service of the Board, they have also earned many promotions. In the context of the above facts, the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 1998 seeking the reliefs noticed above.

The learned single Judge, having opined that in matters relating to seniority and promotion the aggrieved employees should approach the Court for relief within a reasonable time and since the petitioner did not pursue such steps within a reasonable time, no relief could be granted at this distance of time, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal by the aggrieved petitioner.

We have heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner. Sri J. Sudheer, with his usual persuasiveness and force contended that here is a case where several promotions granted to respondents 3 to 5 are ex facie illegal and in contravention of the statutory rules and, therefore, this Court should step in and grant the relief to the petitioner and the Court cannot refuse the relief on the technical ground of delay and laches. Alternatively, the learned Counsel contended that this is not a writ petition which is liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of delay and laches, because, none of the rights flowing from several promotions granted by the Board to respondents 3 to 5 have fructified into vested rights. With regard to the reliefs claimed by the petitioner against respondents 6 and 7, Sri J. Sudheer would contend that the practice of the Board in allowing the deputationists to occupy the posts in the administrative echelon of the Board is not supported by law and the action of the Board in availing the services of respondents 6 and 7 and their subsequent absorption in the Board on a permanent basis is totally arbitrary and violative of the statutory rules. Sri J. Sudheer also highlighted the alleged irregularities and illegalities committed by the Board in promoting the contesting respondents to various posts without they possessing the prescribed eligibilities in terms of experience and passing of departmental tests and acquisition of other qualifications etc. We do not find any necessity to refer to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant touching the merits of the matter, because, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

The facts stated supra speak for themselves. It is trite, in order to grant the relief to the petitioner as prayed for, the Court necessarily should quash the promotions given to respondents 3 to 5 as far back as in the year 1982 and onwards and till now. As could be seen from the materials placed before us, respondents 3 to 5 were promoted to the posts of U.D.Cs., on 6.3.1982 itself. If that promotion of respondents 3 to 5 was irregular or illegal, the petitioner, after his entry into the service of the Board on 6.3.1982 ought to have challenged the same within a reasonable time. He did not do so. That led to the further promotion of respondents 3 to 5 to the post of Superintendent in the year 1986. Even that promotion of respondents 3 to 5 was not assailed. Further, promotions of the respondents 3 to 5 to the post of Assistant Managers were also not assailed by the petitioner. The writ petition was presented only in the year 1998. As regards respondents 6 and 7, the records disclose that though they were the Government employees and joined the service of the Board as deputationists, subsequently their services were permanently absorbed on regular basis with effect from 9.5.1994 and 22.5.1992 respectively in the Board. Should it be noticed that as on the above dates, the petitioner was very much in the service of the Board and if he had any grievance, he should have challenged the action of the Board in absorbing the services of respondents 6 and 7 with effect from the aforementioned dates. He did not do so. It is pertinent to notice in this connection that though the petitioner chose to file W.P. No. 21458 of 1995 assailing the action of the Board in absorbing the services of a deputationist T. Naga Subramanyam, Senior Assistant, the 3rd respondent in the said writ petition, the petitioner did not assail the validity of the action of the Board as regards respondents 6 and 7 herein. Before the year 1995, the services of respondents 6 and 7 were absorbed permanently in the service of the Board. Looking from any angle, we do not find any justification for this Court to entertain the stale claim of the petitioner at this distance of time. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, in seniority and promotion matters, it is always expected that the aggrieved employees should, without any loss of time, promptly approach the Court by seeking judicial review and if they sleep over their rights for number of years, the Court should not extend its helping hand which has the effect of unsettling the settled things. One more weighty reason, which weighed with us not to grant the relief to the petitioner is that at no point of time, the petitioner and the contesting respondents were in the same cadre in service of the Board. By the time the petitioner made entry into the service of the Board on 6.3.1982, the respondents 3 to 5 were in the higher cadre. Similar is the situation with regard to respondents 6 and 7. Looking from that angle also, we do not find any prejudice caused to the petitioner by promotion of respondents 3 to 5 or by reason of absorption of respondents 6 and 7 permanently in the service of the Board. All of them are senior to the petitioner.

The Writ Appeal is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.