JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral)

1. The present LPA arises out of an order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 2394/2023. The same has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner was appointed on 30.09.1996 as Assistant Regional Director, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). He was holding M.Sc, Ph.D. at the relevant point of time and he was promoted later on to the post of Assistant Regional Director (Senior Scale) under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).

3. The Petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that as per the CAS issued by the University Grants Commission, and also keeping in view the norms laid down by IGNOU, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director w.e.f. 30.09.2001 i.e. on completion of 5 years of service as Assistant Regional Director (Senior Scale).

4. The Petitioner also brought on record a circular dated 06.11.2001 and the ordinance framed by the University for CAS under Statute 17 (4) of the Statutes of the University in respect of upgradation.

5. The Petitioner submitted his candidature for grant of upgradation on 08.10.2001. He was interviewed by the Selection Committee on 05.06.2002, however, he was not found fit for grant of upgradation. The Petitioner, thereafter, in the subsequent years again applied for grant of upgradation. He was again interviewed on 23.12.2003 and 01.07.2005, however, he was not granted any upgradation/promotion to the post of Director.

6. The Petitioner, later on, was promoted as Additional Director/Senior Regional Director as per 7th Pay Commission on 30.05.2022 w.e.f. 23.07.2011 and it was only in the year 2023 that he preferred a writ petition praying for 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;"

7. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches as the Petitioner woke up from a deep slumber after 13 years.

8. The operative paragraphs of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as contained in paragraphs 13 to 17 read as under:

13. This Court finds merit in the objection of the Respondents that the writ petition is barred by delay and laches, which is a time honoured and enduring principle and must be applied at the threshold by the Courts to ensure that stale claims are not entertained. Issue of delay and laches becomes pronounced when the relief sought by a Petitioner pertains to grant of seniority and/or promotion. It needs no reiteration that if the reliefs sought by the Petitioner, as aforementioned, are granted, the consequential effect would be his promotion to the post of Deputy Director w.e.f. 30.09.2001 and this would lead to the inevitable result of adversely affecting the seniority of other employeesin IGNOU, who were promoted to the said post when the Petitioner was unsuccessfulor even through the subsequent selections, thereby unsettling a seniority which has remained settled for over two decades. Grant of such a relief, assuming the Petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, would be in the teeth of the binding dictum of the Supreme Court that long settled seniority must not be unsettled. The maxim Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt clearly applies in the present case i.e. law assists only those