Delay in challenging promotions can bar relief; timely action is crucial in promotion matters.

ORDER :

SANJAY DWIVEDI, J.

1. Pleadings are complete. The counsel for the parties agreed to argue the matter finally, accordingly, it is finally heard.

2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed that his superannuation vide order dated 16.10.2014 and the order dated 06.06.2015 be declared bad in law and promotion granted to respondent Nos.4 and 5 be set aside.

It has also been claimed that the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 28.01.2021 be also set aside and it be directed that the case of the petitioner be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer without considering the adverse ACRs for the years 2011 to 2013 and as such, he be promoted w.e.f. 16.10.2024, the date when respondent No.4 was promoted superseding the petitioner or he be granted promotion w.e.f. 06.06.2015 when respondent No.5, who was junior to him, was promoted after superseding the petitioner and the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits.

Although, this fact has been denied by the respondents and they have contended that the petition suffers from delay and laches and as such, petition can be dismissed because in a matter of promotion, delay plays an important role as in number of cases, the Supreme Court is continuously holding that in a case of promotion claimed belatedly, the High Court should not entertain the petition if there is no sufficient explanation given for challenging the same belatedly and according to the respondents, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

3. However, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, the core question emerges for adjudication is “whether the petition suffers from delay and laches and if not, then the petitioner’s claim for granting him promotion with retrospective date when respondent Nos.4 and 5 were promoted, can be considered or not?”

4. To resolve the controversy involved in this case, it is apt to mention the relevant facts of the case, which in nutshell are:-

(4.1) That the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub Engineer in the year 1984 in the department of respondent No.2 and after considering his record, he was granted promotion to the post of Project Engineer in the year 2005.

(4.2) In the year 2014, two posts of Superintending Engineer were sanctioned and Shri J.P. Pastore (respondent No.4 herein) who was posted as Sub Engineer in the year 1998, later promoted to the post of Project Engineer and further promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 2014.

(4.3) Likewise, Shri Kishan Widhani (respondent No.5 herein) has also been promoted as Superintending Engineer in the year 2015 whereas he was appointed as Sub Engineer in the year 1988 and promoted to the post of Project Engineer in the year 2012.

(4.4) As per the petitioner, in the year 2014, a DPC was convened for considering the eligible Project Engineers to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. The DPC met on 13.10.2014 for filling up two vacant posts of Superintending Engineer and as per the criteria prescribed in the Rules, cases were to be considered on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and as per the criteria, DPC had to consider the ACRs of preceding five years and 13 marks were fixed as benchmark for eligible candidates.

(4.5) The petitioner was very hopeful to be considered for the said promotional post but he was not promoted despite the fact that he was never communicated any adverse remark and was enjoying good reputation as per his outstanding performance.

(4.6) Although, after coming to know about the fact that he has been superseded by his junior i.e. respondent No.4, he immediately approached his senior officers so as to know why he was not promoted and he came to know that for the ACRs of preceding five years i.e. 2010 to 2014, he secured only 12 marks whereas respondent No.4 secured 15 marks.

(4.7) The