Uttarakhand High Court
July 14 vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 14 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:1573-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Special Appeal No.393 of 2021
July 14, 2025
Avneesh Bhatnagar & Others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ...Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Rahul Verma, Addl. A.G. for the State.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no.5 through V.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. This is Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of
2021 filed by the appellants for condoning the delay of
742 days in filing this appeal.
2. Delay Condonation Application, being
unopposed, is allowed. Delay is, accordingly, condoned.
3. This intra-court appeal is directed against the
judgment/final order dated 09.03.2018 rendered by
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1782 of
2012. Impugned judgment is reproduced below:-
"Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate, present for the
2025:UHC:1573-DB
petitioners.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the
State.
Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent
no.5.
The petitioners participated in the selection
process. They were offered appointment to the post
of Junior Engineer in the year 2004.
Present petition has been filed seeking a writ
of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the
benefits of 10 additional marks to the petitioners in
terms of the rules of 2003 and further to direct the
respondents to redraw the merit list and after
completion of this exercise, the promotional
exercise be carried out.
The petitioners have slept over their rights
w.e.f. 2004 to 2013. It is settled law by now by
their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court that
promotion and seniority list must be challenged
within a period of six months to one year. Their
Lordships have further held that the vested rights
acquired by a person in the intervening period
cannot be disturbed at a belated stage.
The petitioners have not even added any
person likely to be affected. There is no limitation
as far as writ jurisdiction is concerned but the delay
and laches cannot be overlooked by the Court.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition
and the same is hereby dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of."
4. Appellant participated in a selection for
2025:UHC:1573-DB
appointment as Junior Engineer, pursuant to an
advertisement issued in 2001. Upon selection, he was
appointed as Junior Engineer in 2004. Based on his score
of marks in the selection, appellant was assigned a
particular seniority position amongst Junior Engineers
appointed in 2004. The next promotional post available to
the petitioner is Assistant Engineer and exercise for
promotion as Assistant Engineer was initiated in 2011,
however, appellant was not considered for promotion as
he was down below in seniority list.
5. He then filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.1782 of
2012 with the contention that the Recruitment Rules
applicable for the post of Junior Engineer were amended
in 2003; the amended Rules provided for 10 additional
marks to persons who had served as Apprentice; appellant
had served as Apprentice for the required length of
service, therefore, he was entitled for 10 additional marks
which were not given to him; he, thus, prayed that he be
given 10 additional marks which will improve his seniority
ranking in the cadre of Junior Engineers.
6. The relief sought by the appellant in the said
writ petition is extracted below:-
"Issue a writ, rule or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to allow the
2025:UHC:1573-DB
benefits of 10 additional marks to the petitioners in
terms of the rules of 2003 and further to direct the
respondents to redraw the merit list and after
completion of this exercise, the promotional
exercise be carried out."
7. The writ petition was dismissed by learned
Single Judge by holding that seniority dispute must be
raised within a reasonable time and no one should be
permitted to rake up old/stale claims regarding seniority
as it disturbs the rights acquired by other members of
service. Another ground for dismissing the writ petition
was that the persons whose seniority would be disturbed
by grant of relief in favour of the appellant were not
before the writ court and they are entitled to opportunity
of hearing before taking any decision which may affect
their seniority.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
promotion exercise culminated in the year 2013, and in
the orders of promotion, whereby other persons were
promoted as Assistant Engineer, it was mentioned that
their promotion shall abide by outcome of Writ Petition
(S/S) No.1782 of 2012, which according to learned
counsel for the appellant, constitutes sufficient cause for
condoning the delay and the writ petition could not have
been dismissed by learned Single Judge on the ground of
2025:UHC:1573-DB
delay and laches.
9. We are not impressed by the said submission
made by learned counsel for the appellant.
10. It is settled position in law that settled seniority
list cannot be unsettled at the instance of a person who
challenges the list after inordinate delay. This Court in
Special Appeal No.76 of 2023 "Anil Kumar vs. State
of Uttarakhand & Others, decided on 01.08.2023, has
held as under:-
"5. Learned Single Judge has considered the issue
of delay and laches in great detail. It is held that settled
seniority list cannot be unsettled at the instance of a
person who challenges the list after inordinate delay. The
view taken by learned Single Judge is in conformity with
the law of the land.
6. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Tilokchand Motichand & others Vs.
H.B. Munshi, reported in (1969) 1 SCC 110 has made the
following observations on the question of delay and
laches in paragraph no.18 of the said judgment, which is
reproduced below:
"18. It seems to me, however, that the above
solution is not quite appropriate for petitions
under Article 32. A delay of 12 years or 6
years would make a strange bed-fellow with a
direction or order or writ in the nature of
mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. Bearing
in mind the history of these writs I cannot
believe that the Constituent Assembly had the
intention that five Judges of this Court should
sit together to enforce a fundamental right at
the instance of a person, who had without any
reasonable explanation slept over his rights for
6 or 12 years. The history of these writs both
in England and the U.S.A. convinces me that
2025:UHC:1573-DB
the underlying idea of the Constitution was to
provide an expeditious and authoritative
remedy against the inroads of the State. If a
claim is barred under the Limitation Act,
unless there are exceptional circumstances,
prima facie it is a stale claim and should not
be entertained by this Court. But even if it is
not barred under the Indian Limitation Act, it
may not be entertained by this Court if on the
facts of the case there is unreasonable delay.
For instance, if the State had taken possession
of property under a law alleged to be void, and
if a petitioner comes to this Court 11 years
after the possession was taken by the State, I
would dismiss the petition on the ground of
delay, unless there is some reasonable
explanation. The fact that a suit for possession
of land would still be in time would not be
relevant at all. It is difficult to lay down a
precise period beyond which delay should be
explained. I favour one year because this
Court should not be approached lightly, and
competent legal advice should be taken and
pros and cons carefully weighed before coming
to this Court. It is common knowledge that
appeals and representations to the higher
authorities take time; time spent in pursuing
these remedies may not be excluded under the
Limitation Act, but it may ordinarily be taken
as a good explanation for the delay."
7. The aforesaid view was reiterated by another
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Ramchandra Shankar, Deodhar & others Vs. State of
Maharashtra & others, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317,
where it was 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."
2025:UHC:1573-DB
11. Even otherwise also, the grievance raised by the
appellant before the learned Single Judge was after
inordinate delay of more than a decade. Appellant had
claimed that he was entitled to 10 additional marks for
apprenticeship, which he had undergone before
appointment as Junior Engineer. This issue ought to have
been raised by the appellant while the selection process
was on or soon after his appointment as Junior Engineer.
Appellant staked claim for 10 additional marks after
rendering more than 08 years of service as Junior
Engineer. Grant of additional marks to the appellant would
have resulted in altering appellant's seniority position qua
his batchmates. Thus, appellant was trying to rake up a
seniority dispute 08 years after his appointment, while the
inter se seniority between the appellant and other
members of service was finalized long back and in the
absence of any challenge by the appellant at a proper
stage, their inter se seniority became final.
12. Other members of service whose seniority
position was likely to be disturbed by the decision taken in
the writ petition filed by the appellant were necessary
party to the writ petition and without hearing such other
members of service, no relief could have been granted to
the appellant. In such view of the matter, learned Single
2025:UHC:1573-DB
Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. We do
not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.
13. Accordingly, the appeals fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
14.07.2025 14.07.2025
Rajni
RAJINI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3701a9
ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342,
GUSAIN
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4FC80D4
557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A878BD8,
cn=RAJINI GUSAIN
Date: 2025.07.16 04:28:48 -07'00'
