IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5429 of 2017 ------ Vijay Kumar Singh son of late Ramashray Rai, Resident of Village- Kukurbhunka (Visene Gaon), P.O. & P.S. Nawanagar, District-Buxar (Bihar)-802129, presently residing at Quarter No.L.I.G-R-381-382, Harmu High Court Colony, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi- 834002. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, Department of Law, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. The High Court of Jharkhand through Registrar General, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. 5. Ranvir Kumar S/o Brij Nandan Prasad posted as Section Officer in Jharkhand High Court, P.O-Doranda P.S-Doranda Distt-Ranchi ..... .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Priya Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to G.P.-II For the High Court : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For Resp. No.5 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate ------ C.A.V. on 21.08.2025 Pronounced on 22/09/2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs: - “(i) For issuance of an appropriate 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 2 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the letter of communication issued vide memo no.2269/Accts dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure-13) issued by the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi by which representations of the petitioner dated 13.03.2014, (Annexure-11) 16.4.2014 and 8.8.2014 (Annexure- 12) were rejected with the observation that the petitioner was placed lower in the merit list as because the petitioner having less marks in the Written Test. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to provide appropriate place to the petitioner in the final merit list for the post of Assistant in the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court following the principle decided by the State of Jharkhand in case of more than one person, if got altogether equal marks then the placement of such candidates in the select list will be in accordance with the seniority in age, which principle has not been taken into consideration while preparing final merit list. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to provide the petitioner’s appropriate place in the gradation list/seniority list which was published on 28.01.2014 (Annexure-10) taking into consideration the fact that the gradation/seniority list was prepared on the basis of selection list of the Assistant which needs amendment pursuant to the provision made 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 3 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 by the State Government regarding settlement of selected candidates having altogether equal marks in the selection on the basis of seniority in age. (iv) For any other consequential relief or relief(s) to which the petitioner is duly entitled in the eyes of law considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under: - (i) It is the case of the writ petitioner that an advertisement was issued by the Jharkhand High Court, vide Adv. No. 2/2005 for appointment against the post of Assistant, Translator, Junior Translator and Typist and the said Advertisement was published in the newspaper. (ii) In pursuant to the said Advertisement, the writ petitioner applied against the post of Assistant having the pay-scale of Rs.5500-175-9000. (iii) After submission of the application form by the petitioner, the same was scrutinized by the respondents’ authorities and thereafter, Admit Card was issued in favour of the writ petitioner. (iv) Pursuant to issuance of Admit Card, the writ petitioner appeared in the Written Examination, which was in two parts i.e. subjective and objective. (v) On the basis of the aforesaid Written Test, list of candidates 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 4 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 was prepared and the person who was within the zone of consideration, has only been allowed to appear in the interview. (vi) The letter of interview was issued in favour of the writ petitioner vide letter no.1851 dated 03.04.2007. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared in interview along with others. (vii) On the basis of the marks secured by the candidates, who appeared in the said examination conducted by the respondents’ authorities pursuant to the Advertisement No. 2/2005, a final merit list for all categories of posts, including the post of Assistant, was prepared by the respondents’ authorities. (viii) Against the “unreserved Category” a list containing names of 42 candidates was prepared, in which, the name of the petitioner was not there. However, one waiting list for the post of Assistant in unreserved category was prepared by the respondents’ authorities and in the said waiting list, the name of the petitioner figures at serial no.3. (ix) The names of the persons figure in the final selection list of general category candidates, all of them have been appointed in the month of May, 2007 in between April-May 2007 and since the writ -petitioner was in the waiting list as such the appointment letter in favour of the petitioner was issued on 1st October, 2007. 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 5 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 (x) The final merit list for appointment on the post of Assistant was published in the daily newspaper as well as the same was also circulated in the official website of this Court. (xi) After completion of selection process, a consolidated list of successful candidates, has been published under the heading of general merit list for the post of Assistant, which includes the successful candidates of all categories according to their merit in the selection list. In the aforesaid general merit list, the name of the petitioner finds mention at serial no.43. (xii) From perusal of the aforesaid general merit list, it is further evident that the candidates at serial no. 36 to 48 of the aforesaid general merit list, has obtained altogether 73 total marks which includes the marks of written test as well as the interview. (xiii) The waiting list for the post of “Assistant” categorically shows that the total number of 21 candidates were under General Category, in which, the name of the petitioner figures at Sl. No. 3, whereas, the candidates at Sl. No.1 and 2, including the petitioner, have got total marks 73, which includes the marks of Written Test as well as Interview. (xiv) It is the case of the petitioner that from perusal of the aforesaid “General category” Merit list, it appears that the candidates at Sl. No. 36, 37 and 38 are older than the 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 6 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 petitioner in age and therefore, they have been rightly placed in the aforesaid general merit list as well as in the final merit list of the general category candidate. The date of birth of the petitioner is 02.01.1976 whereas the candidates figure at Sl. No. 36, 37 and 38 are much elder than the petitioner and therefore, they have been rightly placed in consonance with the Rules/Guidelines. (xv) It is further case of the petitioner that at Sl. No. 39 of the aforesaid merit list, name of Mr. Ranvir Kumar was mentioned whose date of birth had been written in the said list as 01.03.1977, therefore, Mr. Ranvir Kumar, is undoubtedly younger than the petitioner in age and therefore, at the place of Ranvir Kumar, the name of petitioner should be placed but the name of the petitioner was not mentioned at that place. (xvi) Being aggrieved with the aforesaid the present writ petition has been preferred. 3. It is evident from the factual aspects that the writ petitioner has participated in the process of selection in pursuant to Advertisement No.2/2005 to fill up the post of Assistant, in the High Court of Jharkhand. The writ petitioner has participated in the process of selection and on being successful in the written examination, he has been called for to participate in the interview. 4. The private respondent no.5 has also participated in the process 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 7 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 of selection and he has been declared to be successful in the written examination and hence, he has also been called for to participate in the interview. 5. The merit list was prepared, in which, the name of respondent no.5 figured at serial no.39, while, the name of the writ petitioner figured at serial no.43. 6. The further factual aspect is that the private respondent no.5 has been appointed in the first list, since, his name was at serial no.39, while the writ petitioner being in the waiting list, has been appointed subsequent to the appointment of private respondent and as such, his name has been placed at serial no.43 in the merit list. Submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that writ petitioner, even though, had obtained 73 marks as aggregate, both in the marks obtained in written examination as well as interview and the private respondent no.5 had also obtained 73 marks in aggregate. Since the petitioner having more in age and as such, instead of private respondent no.5 he should have been placed in the first merit list at serial no.39. But the petitioner has been deprived from the benefit of being more in age in comparison to that of private respondent no.5. However, he has not been appointed, being kept in the waiting list and thereby, his appointment was made subsequent to the 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 8 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 appointment of private respondent no.5. 8. It has further been submitted that the final gradation list has been published in the January 2014, in which, the writ petitioner has been shown to be at serial no.43, while, the private respondent no.5 has been shown to be at serial no.39. The petitioner, thereafter, has approached to the competent authority of this Court for rectification of his position in the seniority list and at that time, he came to know that the basic principle, in a case of tie of marks, the candidates having more in age in comparison to the other candidates who have got equal marks, is to be given preference but that principle has not been followed. Thereafter, he has obtained documents including the merit list and the gradation list and in the year 2017, the present writ petition has been filed. 9. Further, ground has been argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that due to illegality committed by this Court in the Administrative Side, the vital right of the writ petitioner of seniority, on being appointed on the basis of first list, has been taken away and by virtue of that, he became junior, being kept below to the private respondent no.5 in the seniority list. 10. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court, particularly by referring to paragraph-12 thereof that the justification has been given that due to tie in marks, the 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 9 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 consideration has been given on the basis of decision taken by the Appointment Committee duly been approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the Administrative Side and the weightage has been given to the candidates who have obtained more marks in the written examination. The parameter has also been made that in case, where the marks in the written examination and interview are tie, then, in such circumstances, the preference on the basis of age is to be given. 11. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no law to the effect that in case of tie in marks of the candidates participated in the process of selection, the preference is to be given on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination. Further, the said Rule has been formulated after the advertisement having been notified, i.e, in the midst of selection process. 12. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although, the writ petitioner has been appointed but since, his appointment is subsequent to the private respondent and as such, he has been shown below in the seniority list prepared on the basis of merit position in the merit list. 13. Learned counsel, therefore, has submitted that since the due procedure has not been followed in the matter of appointment of the writ petitioner vis-à-vis the private respondent no.5, due to which, the petitioner has adversely been affected by losing his seniority, hence, the present writ petition has been filed to rectify 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 10 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 the position of the writ petitioner in the merit list. Submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondent-High Court. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-High Court of Jharkhand has submitted by referring to paragraph-12 of the affidavit that uniform decision has been taken by the Appointment Committee by formulating the policy decision in respect to the situation where the marks of the candidates has been found in tie. 15. It has been contended that the petitioner is not being prejudiced, since, the policy was formulated by the Appointment Committee of the High Court and the same was applied uniformly to all participants as such it cannot be said that prejudice has been caused to any individual who had participated in the said examination or the said policy decision has been formulated for any ulterior motive. 16. It has been contended that the said appointment/selection process is of the year, 2005-2007 and the same has been challenged after lapse of 10 years, therefore, the present writ petition is not fit to be entertained on the applicability of principle of delay and laches. 17. Moreover, the petitioner has accepted the position of the private respondent no.5 fairly for a long period, therefore, at such a belated stage, it would be not be just and proper to change the 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 11 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 seniority of the private respondent. Submissions of the learned counsel for the Pvt. Respondent 18. Learned counsel appearing for the Pvt. Respondent No.5 while adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the High Court of Jharkhand has submitted that the position of law is well settled that the seniority once has been settled fairly for a long period, the same cannot be unsettled particularly in a case where the litigant has come to the Court of law after accepting the position of the seniority list, fairly for a long period. 19. It has been contended that it is not the case that the writ petitioner was not knowing about his position in the merit list, since, the petitioner himself has admitted, as would be evident from paragraph-17 to the writ petition that the merit list/results along with the marks have been published in the official web-site of the High Court of Jharkhand and even in the daily newspaper and further the petitioner has enclosed the downloaded print out of the same from the official website of the High Court. 20. It has further been contended that the writ petitioner would have vigilant at that time and should have approached the Court immediately but he has chosen to keep mum after preparation of the final list which has been prepared on the basis of merit position of one or the other candidate, as per rule. Hence, at such belated stage, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner. 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 12 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 Moreover, the private respondent no.5 has also got promotion prior to the petitioner. Analysis 21. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition, as also, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 22. The question, which requires consideration in the present case, i.e., (i) Whether the process of selection as has been adopted by the High Court in the Administrative Side, can be said to be unjust and improper if the same has uniformly been applied to all the candidates. (ii) Whether the petitioner can be allowed to question the merit list which has been prepared in the year 2007, i.e., after lapse of about 10 years. (iii) Whether the petitioner can be given benefit of putting him above than the private respondent in the merit list published in the year, 2007 by rectifying his position in the merit list where the petitioner has been shown to be at serial no.43, while, the private respondent has been shown to be at serial no.39, based upon the process formulated by the Appointment Committee of the High Court. 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 13 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 23. Since all the issues are interlinked and as such, the same are being taken up together for its consideration. 24. But, before considering the aforesaid issues, this Court needs to refer herein the position of law so far as questioning the position of the merit list and the procedure if formulated making it applicable uniformly to all and as also the law which has been settled with respect to the issue of seniority to be raised at belated stage. 25. So far as the issue of questioning the position or the process of selection to suffer from an error after delay of considerable period, i.e., after lapse of 10 years as the case herein, it is the settled position of law that the process which has been adopted by the appointing authority is to be assailed before the Court of law within the reasonable period. 26. It is further settled connotation of law that the party claiming Fundamental Rights must move the Court before other rights came into existence. The action of courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of the person moving the Court. The party aggrieved must therefore move the Court at the earliest possible time and explain satisfactorily all semblance of delay. 27. It is not possible for the Court to lay down any specific period as each case will have to be considered on its own facts. Further, the writ petition is neither a suit nor an application to which the 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 14 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 Limitation Act applies. Therefore, the Court has to exercise its discretion from case to case, and where there is appearance of an avoidable delay and this delay affects the merits of the claim, this Court will consider it, and in a proper case, hold the party disentitled to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs. H.B. Munshi & Anr., AIR 1970 SC 898. 28. The aforesaid view was reiterated by another Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Shankar, Deodhar & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317, wherein, it has been 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. 29. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and Others v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside and a writ Court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. It has further been observed that the Court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 15 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 and equitable jurisdiction. Further, as a Constitutional Court, it has duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to a primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the Court at its own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. 30. In the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 274, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “6. Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185 : AIR 1970 SC 769] . Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.” 31. Thus, from the aforesaid settled legal position, it is evident that delay is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and in an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 16 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. 32. 32. So far as formulating the procedure for selection or preparing the merit list by the Appointment Committee at the time of process of selection is concerned, the law is well settled that if the said policy decision/procedure for selection has uniformly been applied to all the candidates, then, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to any individual candidate. 33. Further, the question of issue of seniority is also to be raised within the considerable period and if the position of seniority of the employee has been admitted/accepted fairly for long period, then, it is not available for such employee to raise the issue of seniority after much delay. 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.S.Makashi and Others vs. I.M. Menon, reported in [1982 SCC (1) 379] has held that in fixing the seniority, the Court cannot entertain a belated petition. In that case, the request for alteration was rejected, as it was filed belatedly. It was also stated that in respect of seniority and promotion matters, under the Rules framed by the State Government, it is open to the Government to make objective policy decisions considering the factual circumstances and no rigid principle can be laid down and therefore, the Court cannot interfere with the Government decision unless it is held to be arbitrary and unreasonable, relevant paragraph of the aforesaid 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 17 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 judgment is being quoted as under: “In these circumstances, we consider that the High Court was wrong in overruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should be dismissed on the preliminary ground of delay and lakhhes, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority, rank and promotions which had accrued to a large number of respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened between the passing of the impugned resolution and the institution of the writ petition. We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 22, 1968 ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and lakhhes and the writ petition insofar as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should have been dismissed.” 35. Further, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India, (1976) 1 SCC 599 has observed that raking up old matters like seniority after a long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should be given a quietus after lapse of some time, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: “--------It is difficult no doubt to guarantee such security in all its varied aspects, it should at least be possible to ensure that matters like one's position in the seniority list after having been settled for once should not be liable to be reopened after lapse of many years at the instance of a party who has during the intervening period chosen to keep quiet. Raking up old matters like seniority after a 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 18 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should be given a quietus after lapse of some time.” 36. This Court is now proceeding to deal with the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondents herein. 37. The argument which has been advanced that illegality has been committed at the time of appointment by not considering the Rule of recruitment in a case of tie in marks, as formulated by the State of Jharkhand, which is also applicable in absence of any Rule if not formulated by the High Court, wherein, it has been provided that in such situation of tie in marks, the preference is to be given on the basis of age, i.e., a candidate who is senior in age is to be given preference over the candidate who is less in age. 38. The High Court has given justification, as would be evident from paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit by stating inter-alia therein that Appointment Committee has formulated a policy that in a case of tie in marks, the merit has been determined as per the marks bagged by the candidates in the written examination i.e., the person who have bagged higher marks in the written examination will be placed above in the merit list. In case of tie of marks obtained in written examination and interview, the merit has been decided as per the date of birth of the candidates, i.e. the candidates elder in age have been shown above in the merit list, 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 19 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 for ready reference, paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit is being quoted hereinbelow:- “12) That it is humbly stated and submitted that through the minutes dated 27.04.2007 of Hon’ble the Appointment Committee duly approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, it has been approved inter alia as follows:- It may be pointed out that in case of tie in numbers, the merit has been determined as per the marks bagged by the candidates in the written examination i.e., the persons who have bagged higher marks in written examination have been shown above in the merit list. In case of tie of marks obtained in written examination and interview, the merit has been decided as per the date of birth of the candidates, i.e. the candidates elder in age have been shown above in the merit list.” 39. It is, thus, evident that the Appointment Committee has formulated a policy to deal with the situation that in case of tie in marks, the merit list has been prepared as per the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination i.e., the candidates who had bagged higher marks in written examination have been shown above in the merit list and in case of tie of marks obtained 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 20 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 in written examination and interview, the merit has been decided as per the date of birth of the candidates, i.e. the candidates elder in age have been shown above in the merit list. 40. Herein, the admitted fact is that the petitioner has obtained 65 marks in the written examination and 08 marks in interview, i.e., total 73 marks, while, the private respondent has obtained 66 marks in the written examination and 07 marks in the interview, i.e., total 73 marks. As such, the private respondent no.5 has got more marks in the written examination, i.e., 66 marks. 41. The petitioner, however, having more age in comparison to that of the private respondent no.5. but as per the minutes dated 27.04.2007 which has been formulated by the Appointment Committee of this Court and duly approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the private respondent no. 5 has been placed higher in merit on the basis that he had secured more marks in the written examination in comparison to the writ petitioner. 42. The petitioner subsequently has also been appointed, since, he was kept in the waiting list. The petitioner has admitted the aforesaid fact by giving joining and thereafter, remained silent for years. 43. The final gradation list has been prepared in the year, 2014, in which, the petitioner has been shown below to that of private respondent no.5. The said final gradation list was published on 28.01.2014 but even then, the writ petitioner has not approached 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 21 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 to this Court immediately thereafter and the present writ petition has been filed on 11.09.2017 after publication of gradation list, i.e., after more than 3 ½ years. 44. The present writ petition has been filed by making prayer to go into the issue of merit position of the petitioner vis-à-vis the private respondent. The same cannot be allowed, due to the following reasons: - (i) The petitioner has accepted his position fairly for the long period of time. (ii) The petitioner has taken the ground that he was not knowing about the process of selection/merit determination but the same cannot be accepted, reason being that, it has been admitted by the writ petitioner himself, as would be evident from paragraph-17 to the writ petition that the entire results including the merit list was published in the website of the High Court of Jharkhand as also in the daily newspaper and the petitioner has enclosed the print out of the same which has been appended as annexure 5 and 6 to the writ petition. Further the petitioner has approached this Court after the lapse of 10 years after the appointment and moreover after getting promotion to the post of Section officer. (iii) Further, the consideration on the date of birth for 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 22 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 deciding seniority in the merit list arises only in case of tie of marks obtained in written examination and interview which is clearly evident from minutes of the Appointment Committee dated 27.04.2007 duly approved by the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Herein the writ petitioner has secured lesser marks in written examination (i.e., 65 marks) than the private respondent no.5 (i.e., 66 marks), therefore, as per minute dated 27.04.2007, private respondent no.5 has been placed above the petitioner in merit list. 45. One of the arguments has been advanced that the petitioner came to know about these facts only after publication of final gradation list which was published on 28.01.2014, and only thereafter, the petitioner came to know by getting proper information about the illegality committed in the matter of his selection/appointment. 46. But this is not acceptable to this Court, reason being that, when the entire merit list had been published by the High Court in the Daily Newspaper and in the Website, as per the pleading made at paragraph-17 of the writ petition, then, the petitioner would have approached to the authority for the purpose of ascertaining, so that, he may approach the Court within the reasonable time. 47. So far as the question of publication of final gradation/seniority 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 23 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 list is concerned, that can also not be said to be given a fresh factual position so far as it relates to the position of the petitioner and the private respondent, since, as per the Jharkhand High Court Officers and the Members of Staff (Recruitment, Condition of Service, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, applicable for fixing the seniority, wherein, it has been provided that in the case of those recruited directly, the basis of preparation of seniority list will be the merit position attained by and assigned to them in the competitive examination as is determined and declared by the Court. 48. The petitioner cannot say that he was not knowing about the said Rule and only after publication of the final seniority list, he came to know about the position in view of the availability of the Rules since long for the purpose of fixing the seniority. 49. Further, the High Court has formulated the said minutes/policy decision which is uniformly applicable, therefore no allegation of malice and favoritism has been pleaded in the writ petition by the petitioner, as such, this Court is of the view that if the minutes/policy decision has been formulated applying it universally to all, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to anyone. 50. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the aforesaid fact ought to have been agitated by the writ petitioner within the reasonable period, i.e., immediately after publication of the merit 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 24 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 list and that cannot be allowed to be agitated after lapse of considerable period of time and further, the private respondent as well as the petitioner has been granted promotion to the higher post. 51. The other argument has been taken that the Rule which has been formulated by the Appointment Committee is subsequent to the advertisement and as such, the Rules of the game cannot be allowed to be changed once the game starts but even accepting the same to be correct but at such a belated stage, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner in order to unsettled the settled position of the seniority, particularly, by considering the fact and in the meanwhile, the cadre of both the employees, i.e., the petitioner and the private respondent no.5 have also been changed by virtue of grant of promotion to the higher post. 52. The law as has been settled, as referred hereinabove that the issue after belated delay without any satisfactorily explanation, cannot be allowed to be agitated by the Court of law on the principle of applicability of delay and laches. 53. Further, the seniority in the present case as per the fact of the case herein is, cannot be said to be an independent cause of action, since, the preparation of the seniority list is based upon the position of one or the other candidates in the merit list which has been prepared on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in the process of selection. 2025:JHHC:29383-DB 25 W.P.(S) No.5429/2017 54. If the seniority list is to be gone, then, the issue which has occurred way back in the year, 2005-2007 is to be looked into, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to be proper in view of the applicability of the principle of delay as has been referred hereinabove. 55. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions, is of the view that no relief can be granted in favour of the writ petitioner. 56. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is, dismissed. 57. In consequent to dismissal of this petition, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 22/09/2025 Rohit/-A.F.R.