JUDGMENT

SHIHNGHAL, J. :—This appeal by the State of Orissa is directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court dated April 11, 1975, on a petition filed by respondent Pyarimohan Samantaray (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner claimed that he was a permanent member of the Orissa Administrative Service Class I, since 1959 and was senior to those who were arrayed in the petition as respondents Nos. 4 to 13. His grievance was that the committee which was constituted under Regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, prepared a list of State Civil Service officers under Regulation 5, for promotion to the Indian Administrative service, in1960, but did not include his name even though there was no justification for his supersession by those who were arrayed as respondents Nos.4 to 13. The petitioner also felt aggrieved because those respondents were promoted to the Indian Administrative service by notifications dated May 12, 1962,November 29, 1962,April 25, 1963 and March 27,1965, which his own claim was over looked. A list was however prepared by the committee in1961 in which, according to the petitioner, his name was put at the bottom of the list. It was another grievance of the petitioner that the list was not prepared according to law and the names in it were not arranged in order of seniority in State Civil service. It was not reviewed and revised every year in spite of the requirement of Regulation 5. The petitioner was not appointed to the Indian Administrative Service until 1968, so that he ranked very low in seniority on the date of his appointment. On the basis of these main averments the petitioner filed the aforesaid petition before the High Court, for the several reliefs stated in it, including the relief for quashing the select list be a member of the Indian Administrative service with effect from May 12, 1962, when, according to him, a vacancy arose in the promotion quota of that service.

3. The petitioners claim was traversed in the replies which were filed by the State Government and others, for several reasons. The High Court allowed the petition by its impugned judgment dated April 11, 1975, to the extent that it directed the authorities concerned to redetermine his seniority vis-a-vis those of the respondents from Nos.4 to 13 who were still in service, and to give him all consequential benefits as a result of such redetermination. The High Court left the parties to bear their own costs.

4. The controversy before us has been confined to the short point whether the High Court erred in not dismissing the petition in spite of the inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. That is why we have not though it necessary to refer to the other facts in details for it will be enough to refer to the admitted facts which bear on the controversy before us.

5. As has been stated, the list of the State Civil Service Officers who were found suitable for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service was prepared in 1960 in which the name of the petitioner was not included while the names of respondents 4 to 13, who were junior to him, were included. The petitioner has stated that he felt aggrieved because of his supersession by his juniors in that list. He contended that his name was included in the list which was prepared in 1961, but it was put at the bottom of the list i.e. after respondents 4 to 13. That, according to the petitioner, was in contravention of Regulation 5(3) of the Regulations for the reasons mentioned in the petition. The said respondents were promoted to the Indian Administrative service in 1962 and the petitioner has stated that he thereupon made a representation to the Chief Secretary against his supersession in that very year, but it was rejected on November 9, 1962.Instead of seeking a redress of his grievance by a writ p