2025:UHC:1573-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY Special Appeal No.393 of 2021 July 14, 2025 Avneesh Bhatnagar & Others …Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others …Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Presence:- Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rahul Verma, Addl. A.G. for the State. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no.5 through V.C. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) 1. This is Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of 2021 filed by the appellants for condoning the delay of 742 days in filing this appeal. 2. Delay Condonation Application, being unopposed, is allowed. Delay is, accordingly, condoned. 3. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment/final order dated 09.03.2018 rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1782 of 2012. Impugned judgment is reproduced below:- “Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate, present for the 1 2025:UHC:1573-DB petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent no.5. The petitioners participated in the selection process. They were offered appointment to the post of Junior Engineer in the year 2004. Present petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the benefits of 10 additional marks to the petitioners in terms of the rules of 2003 and further to direct the respondents to redraw the merit list and after completion of this exercise, the promotional exercise be carried out. The petitioners have slept over their rights w.e.f. 2004 to 2013. It is settled law by now by their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court that promotion and seniority list must be challenged within a period of six months to one year. Their Lordships have further held that the vested rights acquired by a person in the intervening period cannot be disturbed at a belated stage. The petitioners have not even added any person likely to be affected. There is no limitation as far as writ jurisdiction is concerned but the delay and laches cannot be overlooked by the Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.” 4. Appellant participated in a selection for 2 2025:UHC:1573-DB appointment as Junior Engineer, pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2001. Upon selection, he was appointed as Junior Engineer in 2004. Based on his score of marks in the selection, appellant was assigned a particular seniority position amongst Junior Engineers appointed in 2004. The next promotional post available to the petitioner is Assistant Engineer and exercise for promotion as Assistant Engineer was initiated in 2011, however, appellant was not considered for promotion as he was down below in seniority list. 5. He then filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.1782 of 2012 with the contention that the Recruitment Rules applicable for the post of Junior Engineer were amended in 2003; the amended Rules provided for 10 additional marks to persons who had served as Apprentice; appellant had served as Apprentice for the required length of service, therefore, he was entitled for 10 additional marks which were not given to him; he, thus, prayed that he be given 10 additional marks which will improve his seniority ranking in the cadre of Junior Engineers. 6. The relief sought by the appellant in the said writ petition is extracted below:- “Issue a writ, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the 3 2025:UHC:1573-DB benefits of 10 additional marks to the petitioners in terms of the rules of 2003 and further to direct the respondents to redraw the merit list and after completion of this exercise, the promotional exercise be carried out.” 7. The writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge by holding that seniority dispute must be raised within a reasonable time and no one should be permitted to rake up old/stale claims regarding seniority as it disturbs the rights acquired by other members of service. Another ground for dismissing the writ petition was that the persons whose seniority would be disturbed by grant of relief in favour of the appellant were not before the writ court and they are entitled to opportunity of hearing before taking any decision which may affect their seniority. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that promotion exercise culminated in the year 2013, and in the orders of promotion, whereby other persons were promoted as Assistant Engineer, it was mentioned that their promotion shall abide by outcome of Writ Petition (S/S) No.1782 of 2012, which according to learned counsel for the appellant, constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay and the writ petition could not have been dismissed by learned Single Judge on the ground of 4 2025:UHC:1573-DB delay and laches. 9. We are not impressed by the said submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. 10. It is settled position in law that settled seniority list cannot be unsettled at the instance of a person who challenges the list after inordinate delay. This Court in Special Appeal No.76 of 2023 “Anil Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others, decided on 01.08.2023, has held as under:- “5. Learned Single Judge has considered the issue of delay and laches in great detail. It is held that settled seniority list cannot be unsettled at the instance of a person who challenges the list after inordinate delay. The view taken by learned Single Judge is in conformity with the law of the land. 6. A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tilokchand Motichand & others Vs. H.B. Munshi, reported in (1969) 1 SCC 110 has made the following observations on the question of delay and laches in paragraph no.18 of the said judgment, which is reproduced below: “18. It seems to me, however, that the above solution is not quite appropriate for petitions under Article 32. A delay of 12 years or 6 years would make a strange bed-fellow with a direction or order or writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. Bearing in mind the history of these writs I cannot believe that the Constituent Assembly had the intention that five Judges of this Court should sit together to enforce a fundamental right at the instance of a person, who had without any reasonable explanation slept over his rights for 6 or 12 years. The history of these writs both in England and the U.S.A. convinces me that 5 2025:UHC:1573-DB the underlying idea of the Constitution was to provide an expeditious and authoritative remedy against the inroads of the State. If a claim is barred under the Limitation Act, unless there are exceptional circumstances, prima facie it is a stale claim and should not be entertained by this Court. But even if it is not barred under the Indian Limitation Act, it may not be entertained by this Court if on the facts of the case there is unreasonable delay. For instance, if the State had taken possession of property under a law alleged to be void, and if a petitioner comes to this Court 11 years after the possession was taken by the State, I would dismiss the petition on the ground of delay, unless there is some reasonable explanation. The fact that a suit for possession of land would still be in time would not be relevant at all. It is difficult to lay down a precise period beyond which delay should be explained. I favour one year because this Court should not be approached lightly, and competent legal advice should be taken and pros and cons carefully weighed before coming to this Court. It is common knowledge that appeals and representations to the higher authorities take time; time spent in pursuing these remedies may not be excluded under the Limitation Act, but it may ordinarily be taken as a good explanation for the delay.” 7. The aforesaid view was reiterated by another Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Shankar, Deodhar & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317, where it was observed that the principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on ground of laches or delay is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay.” 6 2025:UHC:1573-DB 11. Even otherwise also, the grievance raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was after inordinate delay of more than a decade. Appellant had claimed that he was entitled to 10 additional marks for apprenticeship, which he had undergone before appointment as Junior Engineer. This issue ought to have been raised by the appellant while the selection process was on or soon after his appointment as Junior Engineer. Appellant staked claim for 10 additional marks after rendering more than 08 years of service as Junior Engineer. Grant of additional marks to the appellant would have resulted in altering appellant’s seniority position qua his batchmates. Thus, appellant was trying to rake up a seniority dispute 08 years after his appointment, while the inter se seniority between the appellant and other members of service was finalized long back and in the absence of any challenge by the appellant at a proper stage, their inter se seniority became final. 12. Other members of service whose seniority position was likely to be disturbed by the decision taken in the writ petition filed by the appellant were necessary party to the writ petition and without hearing such other members of service, no relief could have been granted to the appellant. In such view of the matter, learned Single 7 2025:UHC:1573-DB Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. 13. Accordingly, the appeals fails and is hereby dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 14.07.2025 14.07.2025 Rajni 8 RAJINI GUSAIN Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3701a9 ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4FC80D4 557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.07.16 04:28:48 -07'00'