Inordinate delay in filing a writ petition under Article 226 can bar relief, emphasizing that applicants must act within a reasonable timeframe to preserve their rights.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri Basavaraja Patel G.K., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

2. The applicant in Application No.731 of 2017 is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , challenging the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

3. The petitioner was initially appointed to the Group- D post on 28.05.1999 and subsequently became eligible for promotion to the next higher cadre of SDA. Upon completion of the requisite number of years in Group-D, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking promotion to the post of SDA. In 2009, the petitioner, along with other similarly placed employees, filed an application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 07.07.2009, directed the concerned authority to consider the representation. The petitioner was promoted to the post of SDA on 14.03.2011. Respondent No.2 thereafter published the date-wise seniority list of SDAs.

3.1 The petitioner submitted a representation seeking retrospective promotion immediately upon completion of seven years in Group-D. By an endorsement dated 12.10.2012, respondent No.2 rejected the representation. Challenging the said endorsement, the petitioner, along with similarly situated persons, approached the Tribunal in Application Nos.7516-7527 of 2012, which were dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.58341 of 2016 before this Court, which was disposed of on 28.11.2016, with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation afresh.

3.2 In compliance with the directions of this Court, and upon consideration of the representation, an endorsement was issued on 02.01.2017 rejecting the request. Aggrieved by the endorsement, the petitioner filed Application No.731 of 2017 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 16.12.2020, dismissed the application.

4. Sri Basavaraj Patel G.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, being eligible for promotion to the post of SDA, should have been promoted on the date of his eligibility, as vacancies existed. He further submits that where the delay in promotion is not attributable to the petitioner, such delay should not deprive him of his right to promotion from the date of eligibility. The Tribunal, without taking note of the fact that juniors to the petitioner in the Group-D cadre have been promoted, committed an error in rejecting the application.

5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner does not have a vested right to promotion, he only has a right to be considered for promotion, and such right does not survive in view of the promotion granted with effect from 17.03.2011. He further submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

6. On consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition on the ground of delay and laches without further examination of the merits of the case. The order of the Tribunal is dated 16.12.2020, whereas the writ petition was filed on 28.09.2024, nearly three years and nine months thereafter. The pleadings in the writ petition do not offer any explanation for the delay, and learned counsel for the petitioner has not furnished any acceptable justification. Although there is no prescribed limitation for filing a writ petition, the exercise of such right cannot be indefinite. The right must be exercised within a re