[2025:RJ-JP:40290-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 298/2025 Pukhraj Bairwa S/o Shri Ramlal Bairwa, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Gram Bakshawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 302029 At Present Resident Of Vpo Palsana, Near Swaj School, Jaipur Road, Palsana, Tehsil Danta, District Sikar- 332402 ----Appellant Versus 1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, 78J, Makarwali Road, C-Block, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer- 305004 (Rajasthan) 2. The Secretary (Administration), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, 78J, Makarwali Road, C-Block Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer- 305004 (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Ms. Priya Prakash For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Judgment 06/10/2025 1. The challenge is to an order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein, the learned Single Judge has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of gross delay and laches. The petitioner challenged the adverse remark in the ACR for the year 2005-2006 by preferring the writ petition in the year 2024. In his petition, he submitted that he was denied ACP on account of the said adverse ACR for one year. He was also superseded in promotion while juniors were granted promotion in the year 2010 and the petitioner was promoted in the year 2014. [2025:RJ-JP:40290-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-298/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that there cannot be any justification for not examining the adverse remark which has been challenged on the account of subsequent adverse effect. 3. We noticed that in the full Bench of this Court in the case of Tayyab Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1998/1988 has held that an employee can challenge the ACR at the time when his promotion is affected. However, we further noticed that in the present case while petitioner was superseded for the year 2010 and was granted promotion in the year 2014, he did not challenge the super-session at that relevant time, no cause of action has arisen today to challenge it after a period of almost 16 years. Even from 2014, ten years have lapsed which is gross in-ordinate delay. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.09.2024. 4. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Rahul/Diksha-22