The principle of maintenance of relative seniority as per Rule 12(1)(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General, Conditions of Service) Rules 1961.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 20.01.2016, Annexure P-12, whereby the respondents in an illegal manner and without giving any proper justification rejected petitioner's representation for grant of proper placement in the seniority list of the post of Testing Supervisor.

2. Petitioner's contention is that he was appointed as Testing Assistant Grade-II vide order dated 20.09.1977. In the seniority list of Testing Assistant Grade -II his name was at serial No.318 whereas that of private respondents were at serial No.331 and below.

3. He was promoted as Testing Assistant Grade-I vide order dated 04.06.1988 and in the gradation list of Testing Assistant Grade-I, his name was at serial No.7 whereas that of private respondents were at serial No.21, 40 and 41.

4. On 19.10.2010, a DPC was convened to consider case of Testing Assistant Grade-I for promotion to the post of Testing Supervisor. It was found that petitioner's ACRs were not available whereas ACRs of the private respondents were made available, as a result, they were given promotion vide order dated 23.10.2010. Copy of this order of promotion is enclosed as I.A.-2.

5. Review DPC was convened on 01.11.2010 and petitioner in view of the availability of the ACRs was given promotion to the post of Testing Supervisor on 04.11.2010 vide Annexure P-10.

6. Now, petitioner's contention is that he is entitled to have a march over the private respondents as he was senior to them all through and for a fortuitous circumstance of non-availability of the ACRs for which petitioner cannot be faulted with he could not be superseded and down graded in the seniority list of Testing Supervisor.

7. Ms. Ritika Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondents in her turn submits that a provisional gradation list of the post of Testing Supervisor was issued in the year 2012, objections were called, final list was published in 2014 and, therefore, claim of the petitioner stood rejected with publication of the final gradation list.

8. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivasswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, wherein it is held that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.

9. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5 SCC 798, whereas in para 18, it is held that the cause of action first arose to the respondents on the date of initial supersession and again on the date when rejection of their representation was communicated to them, or within reasonable time thereafter.

10. In the light of this fact it is submitted that since supersession took place in 2010, petition filed in the year 2016 is barred by limitation.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record. Judgment in case of Chaman Rana (supra) is not applicable. Present is not a case of supersession. Present is a case of computation of seniority and placement of a person who was declared to be fit for promotion in the review DPC. There is a distinction between supersession and inappropriate placement in the seniority list of the promoted post.

12. As far as judgment in case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy (supra) is concerned, that has no application to t