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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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"".
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
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
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
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
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
