Delay and laches in challenging seniority is fatal, and there is no specific period of limitation for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 7. 5. 2004 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant/petitioner.

( 3 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-appellant, who had been a Roller Cleaner/driver, was appointed on 17. 4. 1978. His grievances had been that he had been regularised subsequent to the date persons junior to him had been regularised. Petitioner-appellant had been regularised with effect from 25. 2. 1997, though three persons namely Awadh Narain, Shri Ram Bahadur and Ramesh Kumar Shukla who had been much junior to him had been regularised with effect from 24. 32. 1988, 1. 7. 1990 and 6. 12. 1990. Being aggrieved he filed the writ petition which had been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. Hence, this appeal.

( 4 ) WITHOUT entering into the merits of the case, as to whether appellant should have been relegated to the appropriate forum, we are of the opinion that the petition should not be entertained at such a belated stage, as the persons junior to him had been regularised in 1988-1990 and petitioner-appellant did not challenge their regularisation for such a long period. Moreso, none of them has been impleaded either in the writ petition or in the special appeal. In fact, appellant-petitioner is fighting for seniority, indirectly which cannot be granted to him in absence of the parties, who had been regularised before him, as they are necessary parties. [vide prabodh Verma v. State of U. P. , AIR 1985 SC 167; Ishar Singh v. Kuldeep Singh, 1995 (Supp) 1 scc 179; Bhagwati and Ors. v. Subordinate Service Selection Board, Haryana and Ors. , 1995 (Supp) 2 SCC 663; Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam and Ors. , (1996) 6 SCC 419; J. Jose dhanapaul v. S. Thomas and Ors. , (1996) 3 SCC 587; Arun Tiwari and Ors. v. Zila Mansavi shikshak Sangh and Ors. , AIR 1998 SC 331; Azar Hasan and Ors. v. District Judge. Saharanpur, 1998 (3) SCC 246; Ram Swarup and Ors. v. S. N. Maira and Ors. , (1999) 1 SCC 738; Chandra kishore Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors. , (1999) 8 SCC 287; Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and ors. v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Ors. , (2000) 2 SCC 606; Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and Ors. , (2002) 5 SCC 481; M. P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit v. Indian Coffee Workers Co-operative Society Ltd. and Ors. , (2002) 9 SCC 204 and Ramrao and ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Ors. , (2004) 2 SCC 1501].

( 5 ) EVEN otherwise, the appellant-petitioner has not challenged the seniority list issued about a decade ago, in which all the three persons had been placed over and above to him. Learned counsel for the appellant has suggested that he be given time to file applications for impleadment as well as amendment, challenging the said seniority list, However, we do not consider it necessary for the reason that, it is not permissible for him in law. to challenge the seniority list at such a belated stage.

( 6 ) A Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar and ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 259, considered the effect of delay in challenging the seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. While deciding the said case, the apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, particularly in Trilokchand Motichand v. H. B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898, wherein it has been observed that the principle, on which the court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay, is that the rights, which have acc