1. This petition calls in question various orders of promotion passed by respondents at various stages. The first promotion order was passed on 18.10.1980. Subsequent promotion orders were passed on 18.12.1983, 12.06.1984, 5.11.1985, 21.01.1986 and 09.04.1986. In all these orders some of the respondents were promoted to the posts of Junior Assistants. All the respondents 5 to 80 were working as Conductors and all of them were junior to the petitioner. Petitioner, right from 18.10.1980 was dropped. He went on making representations but the same yielded no result. Thus court wherein orders of promotion passed in so far as the same related to promotion of petitioners junior were challenged. The main ground of challenge was that the actions of the respondents were discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution.

2. Detailed counter has been filed wherein two fold defence has been taken:

1. That the petition is barred by laches;

2. That the petitioner having been visited with two punishments of fine on 24.07.70 and 8.10.1983 could not be considered as he was not eligible for promotion.

3. I want to place on record that according to the respondents version in the counter affidavit, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner at these two occasions was a fine of Rs, 30/- and Rs. SO/- respectively.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings. I propose to dispose of the points in controversy in the following manner: -

1-LACHES:

5. A motion can be barred by doctrine of laches if the petitioner has willfully slept over his right for a considerable period of time and allowed the impugned action to get perfected through its implementation. There is no prescribed period of limitation for filing a writ petition. However, Courts have evolved this doctrine for placing an embargo on filing a writ petition after expiry a considerable period of time. The object being to disentitle a seeker of the relief to dislodge an action which must have assumed finality, through its perfected execution. The doctrine, as such, does not have any mathematical formula in its armory to lay fetters on the discretionary powers of the Court. In matters before the Courts of extra-ordinary jurisdiction Courts themselves have to consider as to what can be the practical approach which in the circumstances of the case must result in satisfying the ends of justice. This is how in one case higher courts hold that the doctrine will apply in the other, which may be having some distinct features, its application is not accepted. However, in every case the cardinal principle to be taken care of by the courts is to see as to whether or not the petitioner has willfully slept over his right. The doctrine of laches emanates from doctrine of waiver because one who sleeps over his right will be presumed to have waived that, right. A waiver for a considerable period of time estopes the petitioner from raising the claim denovo. In my opinion this is the sum total of the doctrine of laches.

6. The Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 1974 SC 259 clarified the position with regard to laches and powers of the Court. The rule saying that belated petition, having been filed after 10/12 years of the alleged omission. A distinction was also made between ordinary writs and those alleging violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art, 16 of the constitution. It was held that right to equal opportunity in matters of service and employment could not be said to have been defeated by the doctrine of laches. There lordships held asunder:-

" We do not think this contention should prevail with us. In the first place, it must be remembered that the rule which says that the Court may not inquire into belated and stale claims is not a rule of law, but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and there is no inviolable rule that whenever th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document