S. B. MAJMUDAR, J.

( 1 ) ). In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is working as Assistant in the office of this court has brought in challenge the grant of selection grades to respondents Nos. 2 to 10 herein and the promotions given to them as senior clerks-cum-Assistants by this court on its administrative side.

( 2 ) ). In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to note the salient features of the service bio-data of the petitioner vis-a-vis contesting respondents Nos. 2 to 10 herein. The petitioner was appointed as a section writer in 1967 in the office of his court. He is now working as Assistant in the same office. The petitioner was appointed as section writer on 24-10-1967. He was promoted as junior clerk on 15-11-1967 and he was confirmed as junior clerk on 1-3-1972. He passed the lower standard departmental examination, (hereafter referred to as the said examination) on 30-10-1974. 10% of the posts of junior clerks were upgraded and made section grade post in the pay-scale of Rs. 190-290 in May 1974. Respondents Nos. 2 to 10 were given selection grade by order dated 5-6-1974, Exhibit A, pre sumably because all of them by that time had passed the said examination By the said order, they were given selection grades from diverse dates retrospectively from 1-4-1972. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he passed the said examination on 30-10-1974. Consequently, by an order dated 7-12-1974, the petitioner was granted section grade. Thus respondents Nos. 2 to 10 were fixed in the selection grades earlier as compared to the petitioner. There after concerned respondents Nos. 2 to 10 were promoted to the cadre of Assistants-cum-Senior Clerks on different dates from 1-10-1973 to 19-3-1976. Respondent No. 2 was promoted as senior clerk on 1-10-1973. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were promoted on 2-7-1975 :res-pondents Nos. 6 and 7 were promoted on 9-2-1976 while respondent No. 10 was promoted on 19-3-1976. So fir as the petitioner concerned, he came to be promoted as senior clerk-cam-Assistant on 16-8-1976. So far as seniority in the junior clerks cadre is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner was senior to these respondents and there is no dispute on this aspect. It is in the background of these facts concerning the relevant bio-data of the oncerned contesting parties that the twin question posed for my consideration by Mr. Hathi for the petitioner will have to be considered and decided.

( 3 ) ). . . . . The only grievance which survives for consideration in the present petition is the centering round the grant of promotions to respondents Nos. 2 to 10 between 1-10-1973 and 19-3-1976 and claim of the petitioner that he should be given deemed date of promoting as senior clerk from 1-3-1973 or latest from 2-7-1975. So far as this grievance is concerned, the question of delay and laches assumes great importance. It cannot be disputed that the respondent No. 2 was promoted as senior clerk on 1-10-1973 while respondent Nos. 2 to 10 were promoted from posts of junior clerks to higher posts of Senior clerks between 1-10-1973 and 19-3-1976. All of them were earlier working as junior clerks in the same offence in the High Court The petitioner naturally must have known about those promotions at that very time. It it therefore, obvious that nothing prevented the petitioner from challenging thesaid decision of this court on administrative side by filing a writ petition at least in 1976 itself when respondent No. 10 being the junior most clerk was promoted as senior clerk. It is to be kept in view that the petitioner representation against non-granting of selection grade to him as per order in June 1974 alongwith his juniors-respondents Nos. 2 to 10 was turned down by the court on administrative side in 1974 itself and by a communication dated 23-7-1974, the petitioner was informed accordingly. The munication re-cording this decision is found at page 23 of the paper-book at An

Click Here to Read the rest of this document