HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1272 of 2025 (S/S) Smt. Amrita Bisht ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 09.03.2018, by which she was denied promotion to the position Mukhya Sevika. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakarti in Angan Vadi Khetbharad, Tehsil Munsiyari, District Pithoragarh on 01.03.1985. She was eligible for promotion to the position of Mukhya Sevika, but when despite repeated representations the promotion was not done, she filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 345 of 2012, Smt Amrita Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (“the first petition”), seeking directions that she may be promoted to the position of Mukhya Sevika. The first petition was decided on 27.12.2017. The Court then directed the Director, Child Development and Women Empowerment, Uttarakhand, to consider petitioner’s claim for promotion against one of the unreserved vacancies on the post of Mukhya Sevika and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 09.03.2018, the petitioner’s claim was denied. It is impugned in the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while considering the promotion, the respondents-authorities failed to take 2 into notice the fact that some of the candidates were appointed prior to their attaining the age of majority, and, therefore, there have been irregularity in the promotion exercise; the claim of the petitioner has been wrongly denied. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the petition has been filed after seven years of the impugned order; there is inordinate delay. 5. As such, there is no limitation for preferring a writ petition, but then, promptness of the litigation is always expected of. If there is inordinate delay in preferring a writ petition, it needs to be explained. In service matters, delay of more than seven years challenging denial of promotion is absolutely extraordinarily delayed and on this ground only, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 6. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 01.08.2025 Ravi Bisht