Point of Law : 10. Court should not embark upon on and enquiry into the merits of the case and that writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches alone.

ORDER :

The petitioner seeks quashing of promotion of private respondents No. 3 to 5 as Assistant Engineers (Civil). Consequent prayer has been made for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (AE for short) from the date his juniors i.e. respondents No.3 to 5 were promoted as such with all incidental benefits. Another prayer has been made for re-drawing the seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) [hereinafter as JEs (Civil)] as it stood on 31.12.2014 and to place the petitioner, therein at the same seniority position which he was holding in the seniority list of JEs issued vide Annexure A-2.

2. The relevant factual matrix of the case is as under:-

2(i). On 08.09.2005, the official respondents issued final seniority list of Surveyors working in Irrigation and Public Health Department (IPH hereinafter) as it stood on 31.12.2004. Name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No.299 of this list, whereas, private respondents No.3, 4 and 5 figured at seniority position Nos. 301, 304 and 306, respectively. Private respondents No.3 to 5 were juniors to the petitioner as Surveyors in terms of final seniority list of the Surveyors circulated by the official respondents on 08.09.2005 (Annexure A-1).

2(ii) On the basis of final seniority list of the Surveyors dated 08.09.2005 (Annexure A-1), the respondents issued office order dated 27.09.2005 (Annexure A-2), promoting the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5 as JEs (Civil) on ad hoc basis. The name of the petitioner is at Sr. No.6, whereas names of respondents No.3 to 5 figure below the petitioner i.e. at Sr. Nos. 7, 11 and 10, respectively, in this office order. Their seniority positions from the seniority list of Surveyors have also been depicted in this office order against their respective names.

2(iii) A provisional seniority list of JEs (Civil) was circulated by the respondents vide Annexure A-3, depicting the position of the JEs as on 31.12.2014. Here again, the petitioner has been reflected as senior to respondents No.3 to 5. He has been assigned seniority at Sr.No.377, whereas, respondents No.3 to 5 have been assigned seniority positions at Sr. Nos. 378, 382 and, 381, respectively.

2(iv) On 17.03.2017, provisional seniority list of JEs (Civil) as it stood on 31.12.2016, was circulated vide Annexure A-4. In this seniority list, a departure was made from earlier existing seniority list inasmuch as the petitioner, who was earlier being shown as senior to the private respondents, was now shown their junior. He was assigned seniority position No.379, whereas, respondents No.3 and 4 were assigned seniority over him at Sr. Nos. 372 and 373, respectively. Respondent No.5 again figured below the petitioner at seniority position No.382. The petitioner represented on 21.08.2017 against the downgrading of his seniority position in the seniority list of JEs dated 17.03.2017. The representation was rejected on 30.12.2017. In the meanwhile, the respondents issued notification dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure A-6), ordering placement of respondents No.3 to 5 as Assistant Engineers (Civil).

2(v) It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner has filed the instant petition, seeking following substantive reliefs:-

“(a) That the impugned action as contained in the Annexure A-6 qua the respondent No 3 to 6 wherein they have been promoted as Assistant Engineer may very kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to consider and promote the applicant as Assistant Engineer from the date from which respondent No.3 to 6 (who are junior to the applicant) have been promoted and further be directed to give all consequential benefits including seniority and monitory benefit w.e.f. 09.10.2017.

(b) That the respondent No.2 be directed to redraw the seniority list and place the applicant on the same position i.e. at Sr. No.372 on which he was placed vi