Gujarat High Court
Babubhai Manilal Barot vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7967 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
BABUBHAI MANILAL BAROT & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VATSAL S PARIKH(7452) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,4,5,6,
7,8,9
MR. HENIL SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2-STATE
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate for the respondent waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard at length for final hearing.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioners for seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents herein to decide the issue raised by the representation annexed at Annexure-A dated 23.08.2016 at the earliest.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents herein to revise the Cadre and Category wise Seniority List of Accounts and Treasuries Department published by them annexed herewith as Annexure-A and to prepare the Seniority List in accordance with the Settled Legal positions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(C) Any other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioners in this petition that ne of the retired employee had preferred an RTI Application and had sought various information regarding the Seniority List of each cadre and category of the Accounts and Treasury Department whereby, the Respondent Authorities had provided with the information sought by the Petitioner No.3, along Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined with relevant documents. It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that after the perusal of the said information as well as the documents, it came to notice of the petitioners that there was some discrepancy in preparing the seniority of the selection list and, therefore, one of the petitioners had made a detailed representation to the Director, Accounts and Treasuries Department and others. It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that the Gujarat Administrative Section had replied to the said letter.
3.2 It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that the seniority list has to be prepared by concerned department and therefore the said representation has been forwarded to the concerned department. Thereafter, there was no reply received from the Director, Accounts and Treasuries Department as well as from the Secretary, Finance Department and, therefore, once again on 21.12.2016 had sent a reminder letter to the Concerned Department. It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that the reply from the Deputy-Secretary had been received which only mentioned that the seniority had been prepared on the basis of Rota and Quota basis and that the file relating to preparation of Seniority List as per Push Down is on representation. It is further the case of the petitioners in this petition that the Respondent Authorities has not given a Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined satisfactory reply and has failed to answer the issue raised by the representation dated 23.08.2016. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.
4. Heard Mr. Vatsal Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Henil Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents - State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
5. Mr. Vatsal Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn my attention towards the averments made in the petition, the other documents annexed with the petition as well as the additional affidavit and affidavit-in-rejoinder and has submitted that the petitioners were not given the benefit of due seniority as required and when they came to know about such wrongful action from the authority, they have made representation before the authority in the year 2016 and the representation is also not responded. He has further submitted that representation is made on the basis of some information received by way of RTI Application whereby entire seniority list is received by the petitioners and, therefore, he has submitted that as such there is no delay on the part of the petitioners to approach this Court and when there is apparent irregularities committed by the respondent authority while considering the promotion whereby as per Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined submissions of Mr. Parikh, from the persons, who are promoted; some of them are not even born in the cadre at the relevant time. He has further submitted that considering the case of the petitioners, who have rendered long service with the respondent authority, and all of them are now retired from service, and, therefore, he has submitted that appropriate prayer may be granted relief considering the nature of the prayer in the present petition as the respondent authority has yet not responded to the representation made in August, 2016.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
6.1 Per contra, Mr. Henil Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents - State has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit-in-reply and relevant Government Resolution and has submitted that the petition is required to be dismissed on various grounds; there is delay on the part of the petitioners as all the petitioners have received at least three promotions during their service tenure and latest promotions to the petitioners were given in the year 2007. He has submitted that doctrine of acquiescence will also come into play. He has further submitted that once the seniority is settled, then it is not open for the petitioners to challenge more particularly considering the fact that in view of the Government Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined Resolution dated 05.04.2012, the cut off date is fixed in the year 2012 and, therefore, on that count also, the petition is required to be dismissed. He has further submitted that all the petitioners could have raised their grievance at the relevant point of time and raising grievance after much delay will certainly cause great prejudice to the rights of the other persons in the seniority list and, therefore, he has submitted that present petition is required to be dismissed on various grounds.
6.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied on following judgments:
(i) Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 68434, more particularly, paragraphs 4 and 5 are relevant.
(ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department reported in 2015 (0) AIJEL-SC 57194, more particularly, paragraphs 36 to 37 are relevant.
(iii) Judgment of this Court in the case of Akabari Kaushik Hansrajbhai vs. State of Gujarat reported in Special Civil Application No. 10273 of 2016 and allied matters, judgment 22.07.2025, more particularly, paragraph 7.2.3 is relevant.Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined
(iv) Judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Idrishbhai Ibrahimbhai Khattri vs. State of Gujarat reported in Special Civil Application No. 8284 of 2025, order dated 21.08.2025, more particularly, paragraphs 3 to 5 are relevant.
6.3 He has also submitted that in view of this, merely making the representation at the belated stage will not extend the period of limitation and, therefore, the petitioners should have approached this Court immediately and, therefore, on this count, the petition is required to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS:-
7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. I have also considered the fact that in the present case, all the petitioners have received promotion during their lifetime. It transpires that latest promotion has been received by some of the petitioners in the year 2007 and the petition has been filed in the year 2018 on the basis of representation made in the year 2016. Though attempt was made by the petitioners to explain and give some justification by explaining the cause of delay by filing additional affidavit, prima facie and from the materials available on the record, Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined the fact remains that the petitioners have not taken proper steps till the year 2016 and that too, by making representation and even from the reading of the averments made in the present petition, more particularly, paragraph 3.2. which reads as under:
"32. The Petitioners states that one of the Retired Employee had preferred an RTI Application and had sought various information regarding the Seniority List of each cadre and category of the Accounts and Treasury Department whereby, the Respondent Authorities had provided with the information sought by the Petitioner No.3, alongwith relevant documents. It is submitted that after the perusal of the said information as well as the Documents it came to notice of the Petitioners that there was some discrepancy in preparing the Seniority of the Selection List and therefore one of the Petitioner had made a detailed representation to the Director, Accounts and Treasuries Department and others on 23.08.2016. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-'C' is the copy of the said representation dated 23.08.2016 addressed to Respondent Authorities."
7.2 It also suggests that the petitioners have tried to put up the case by creating cause of action at the belated stage by making vague averments without giving specific dates and details about such events in proper manner. It also transpires that the seniority is fixed from the cut off date mentioned in Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined the Government Resolution dated 05.04.2012; as the seniority is already fixed, no fruitful purpose will be served to disturb the such settled position, which creates a lot of anarchy in the administration without any justifiable reason. 7.3 It is fruitful to refer to the judgments relied upon by learned AGP for the respondent - State:
(i) Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 4 and 5 are relevant:
"4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as such the petitioner prayed for a specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001. For the first time, the petitioner made a representation for allotment of 10% plot as per Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 in the year 2010, i.e., after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such if the suit would have been filed for specific performance, the same would have been barred by limitation. Despite the above, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court and as observed hereinabove prayed for specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 being Writ Petition No.37443 of 2011, which was also filed after a period of 11 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined when the earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2011 which was also barred by delay and latches, the High Court ought not to have entertained the same. Instead, the High Court entertained the said writ petition and directed the NOIDA to decide the representation of the petitioner, which as such was made after a period of 10 years, expeditiously and it gave the fresh blood to the litigation, which otherwise was barred by delay and latches. The High Court by passing the order dated 07.04.2017 as such did not realise and/or appreciated that the writ petition itself was required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as the same was filed after a period of 11 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed under which the right was claimed. We have come across number of such orders passed by the High Courts directing the authorities to decide the representation though the representations are made belatedly and thereafter when a decision is taken on such representation, thereafter it can be said on behalf of the petitioner that the fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation. Therefore, when such orders are passed by the High Courts either relegating the petitioner to make a representation and/or directing the appropriate authority to decide the representation, the High Courts have to consider whether the writ petition is filed belatedly and/or the same is barred by latches and/or not, so that in future the person who has approached belatedly may not contend that the fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation. Even in a case where earlier representation is rejected, the High Court shall decide the matter on Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined merits.
5. As observed by this Court in catena of decisions, mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action."
(ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 36 to 37 are relevant:
"36. It is now a well recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases Courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delays as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the Court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. Doctrine of laches is in fact an application of maxim of equity ""delay defeats equities"".Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined
37. This principle is applied in those cases where discretionary orders of the Court are claimed, such as specific performance, permanent or temporary injunction, appointment of receiver etc. These principles are also applied in the writ petitions filed Under Articles 32 and 226 of Constitution of India. In such cases, Courts can still refuse relief where the delay on the Petitioner''s part has prejudiced the Respondent even though the Petitioner might have come to Court within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act."
(iii) Judgment of this Court in the case of Akabari Kaushik Hansrajbhai (supra), more particularly, paragraph 7.2.3 is relevant:
"7.2.3 Additionally, it is also fruitful to refer another judgment relied upon by learned AGP in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others (supra), more particularly, paragraph 18 is relevant, as under:
"... 18. The question of entertaining the petition disputing the long standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 259, considered the effect of delay in challenging the promotion and seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause of complaint. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, particularly in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898, wherein it has been observed that the principle, on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay, is that the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in filing the writ petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for delay. The Court further observed as under:-
"A party claiming fundamental rights must move the Court before others' rights come out into existence. The action of the Courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of person moving the court...."
(iv) Judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Idrishbhai Ibrahimbhai Khattri (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 3 to 5 are relevant:
"3. It would appear that the petitioner had joined the services of the respondent-State in the year 1976 as Assistant Architect, Class-III, and whereas the petitioner continued to serve as such with the respondents till Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined 28.02.2005, on which date, the petitioner had voluntarily retired from the services of the State after completing 29 years of service. It is the case of the petitioner that an employee, one Mr. A.B. Zaveri, who was actually junior to the petitioner, had been posted higher in the seniority list, as per the averments made in the petition, and whereas the petitioner had preferred an objection against the same and whereas it is submitted that in the year 1981, the respondent No.2 had rejected the objection.
4. It appears that the petitioner had thereafter, from the year 2005, till the year 2021, not done anything and whereas, the petitioner had filed an appeal claiming his seniority and revision based upon the said seniority before the Chief Town Planner (Architect) and whereas since the said appeal was not being decided, the petitioner had approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Appeal No. 9194 of 2022 and whereas a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 08.06.2022, had directed the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of six weeks. It appears that the respondent No.2 being the competent authority, at the first instance, had informed the petitioner vide communication dated 10.10.2022 as regards there being no record available with the respondent except the service book of the petitioner and whereas later on, vide impugned communication dated 03.12.2022, on the ground that no documents are available for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion, had rejected the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner has approached this Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined Court.
5. While learned Advocate Mr. Sheth for the petitioner would make various submissions on the merits of the matter, to this Court, it would appear that the present petition does not deserve to be entertained, more particularly on the ground of delay and laches. It appears, as could be found in the petition, that the petitioner had taken voluntary retirement in the year 2005 and whereas he had moved an application before the respondent-State Authorities, for grant of benefits of seniority, deemed date promotion etc. after a period of 16 years i.e. in the year 2021. It also appears from the averments made in the petition that the seniority benefits, which the petitioner is seeking, relate back to the year 1981 i.e. approximately 45 years earlier. To this Court, it would appear that the extraordinary delay, with which the applications have been filed by the petitioner, itself is good ground not to entertain the present petition."
7.4 From the reading of above-mentioned judgments, all the above judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case for considering the issue regarding disturbing the settled seniority and also considering the issue about the delay in making representation; and merely making representation will not extend the period of filing of the petition, which should have been filed within a reasonable period of time and it cannot be considered that present Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined petition which is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not hit by the principle of delay and latches. 7.5 Furthermore, considering the judgment regarding the acquiescence, the present case is a classic case where the petitioners got acquainted with the action taken at the much belated stage.
CONCLUSION:
7.6 Considering all the factual aspects as well as legal aspects of the matter, I found that no case is made out on the merits to grant any relief as prayed for in the present petition and, therefore, the present petition is found merit-
less as there is no violation of Articles 14, 16 or Articles 310 or 311 of the Constitution of India. I found no illegality committed by the respondent authority in the matter and, therefore, no interference is required to be called for by this Court. Accordingly, the present petition is required to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Notice stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Tue Sep 30 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 30 23:13:29 IST 2025