The main legal point established in the judgment is the enduring principle of delay and laches in service matters, emphasizing that stale claims for promotion should not be entertained as they can adversely affect settled positions and seniority of other employees.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 9169/2023 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2394/2023

3. Present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"i) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the higher cadre of Deputy Director in IGNOU with effect from 30/09/2001, the date on which he became eligible and entitled to the promotion, and to pay all resultant consequential service benefits;

ii) issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the cadre of Deputy Director in IGNOU with effect from 30/09/2001, the date on which he became eligible, and entitled to all consequential service benefits, including seniority, enhanced scale of pay, subsequent timely promotions, back wages and arrears with interest;"

4. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3 takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that it is barred by delay and laches.

5. Factual exposition set out in the writ petition is that the Petitioner joined Indira Gandhi National Open University (`IGNOU') on 30.09.1992 as Assistant Regional Director with qualifications of M.Sc., Ph.D., as stipulated by UGC. On 30.09.1996, Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Regional Director (Senior Scale) under the Career Advancement Scheme (`CAS').

6. According to the Petitioner, as per the UGC/IGNOU norms, Petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director w.e.f. 30.09.2001 on completion of 5 years as Assistant Regional Director (Senior Scale), which was the eligibility period.

7. The Academic Coordination Division of IGNOU issued a Circular dated 06.11.2001, as per Ordinance framed by the University for CAS under Statute 17(14) of the Statutes of the University to streamline the process of promotion of eligible teachers/Academics under the CAS, to various posts. As per the Circular, the eligible teachers/Academics were required to submit their Performance Appraisal Forms to the Academic Co-ordination Division in the prescribed format, through proper channel. Petitioner, who fulfilled all requisite qualifications applied for the post of Deputy Director on 08.10.2001 and sent the duly filled-in Performance Appraisal Form, through proper channel. Petitioner appeared for the interview before the Selection Committee on 05.06.2002, but was not recommended and the reason for not recommending him was also not communicated.

8. Petitioner states that he appeared for the interviews twice thereafter on 23.12.2003 and 01.07.2005, but remained unsuccessful. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in not recommending him for promotion, Petitioner made representations dated 31.08.2005, 23.12.2005 and 07.06.2018 and requested for promotion w.e.f. 30.09.2001. Getting no response, Petitioner has filed the present petition.

9. Contention of the Petitioner is that he fulfils all requisite qualifications prescribed by University/IGNOU under the CAS and had applied for consideration for promotion in the year 2001. The required Performance Appraisal Form was also filled and submitted and there was no impediment in his way of being promoted to the post of Deputy Director w.e.f. 30.09.2001 and yet he has been deprived of his due promotion.

10. Insofar as delay and laches in approaching the Court are concerned, it is submitted that Petitioner had a legitimate expectation over the years that his representations will be favourably considered and therefore, he did not approach the Court. In any case, once the promotion is granted to the Petitioner, he will be entitled to enhanced salary with back wages and as held by the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, claim for grant of higher pay scales is a continuing cause of action. Thus, the petition cannot be dismissed on g