The main legal point established is that the principles of the Limitation Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mamta Mohanty apply to writ petitions, and delay and laches can bar a writ petition filed after a long delay following the accrual of cause of action.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a retired employee of the respondent no.2/Canara Bank, seeks the relief of quashing of the reply dated 23.5.2016 issued by the respondent no.2/employer whereby petitioner has been denied the benefit of promotion.

2. A reading of the writ petition shows that petitioner in effect challenges the seniority list which was circulated by the respondent no.2 around 22 years back on 16.4.1994. This seniority list dated 16.4.1994 shows that petitioner was not given the promotion for the year 1990-91. Petitioner had filed a statutory appeal dated 18.5.1994 to the appellate authority for his being favorably considered for promotion for the year 1990-91. The statutory appeal was however dismissed in terms of the letter dated 24.3.1995 of the respondent no.2. Petitioner thereafter engaged in a series of correspondence with the respondent no.2, but the petitioner did not get his promotion w.e.f the year 1990-91 even till his retirement on 31.3.2008. Petitioner had applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as to details of 1994-95 decision denying him promotion and the petitioner pleads that after 22 years the respondent no.2 has provided the information with respect to promotion appraisal for the relevant year 1990-91 vide letter dated 17.3.2016 and which letter shows that petitioner was wrongly denied promotion because petitioner was appraised by those officers under whom the petitioner never worked. Therefore it is claimed that petitioner is entitled to benefit of promotion.

3. This writ petition has been filed on 22.2.2017. By a writ petition of the year 2017, petitioner cannot claim benefits of promotion for the year 1990-91 and which was denied to him in terms of the seniority list dated 16.4.1994 and the statutory appeal of the petitioner was rejected way back in view of the respondent no.2/bank’s letter dated 24.3.1995. Petitioner has retired on 31.3.2008 without getting benefit of promotion for the year 1990-91. The principles of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to writ petitions and writ petitions filed beyond the period of limitation have to be dismissed as being barred by delay and laches in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436.

4. I have considered the aspect of the Limitation Act applying to writ petitions in the judgments dated 16.4.2015 in W.P. (C) No.4107/2013 titled as Dr. Avtar Singh Vs. Guru Nanak Public School & Ors. and in a bunch of cases with lead case being Ms. Preeti Sharma Vs. Ganga International School and Ors. in W.P. (C) No.7792/2015 decided on 19.1.2017. The relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Ms. Preeti Sharma (supra) are paras 6 to 8 and these paras read as under:-

“6. That Limitation Act does not strictly apply to writ petitions, but principles of Limitation Act do apply by application of doctrine of delay and laches in a writ petition is no longer res integra and has been so held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436. Paras 52 to 54 of the judgment in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra) are relevant and these paras read as under:-

“52. In the very first appeal, the respondent filed writ petition on 11.11.2005 claiming relief under the Notification dated 6.10.1989 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 without furnishing any explanation for such inordinate delay and on laches on her part. Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963, makes it obligatory on the part of the court to dismiss the Suit or appeal if made after the prescribed period even though the limitation is not set up as a defence and there is no plea to raise the issue of limitation even at appellate stage because in some of the cases it may go to the root of the matter.

53. Needless to say that Limitation Act 1963 does not apply in writ jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation b