9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (11) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion as respondents Nos. 4 to 13. His grievance was that the committee which was constituted under regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, hereinafter referred to a the Regulations, prepared a list of State Civil Service officers under regulation 5, for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, in 1960, but did not include his name even though there was no justification for his supersession by those who were arrayed as respondents Nos. 4 to 13. The petitioner also felt aggrieved because those respondents were promoted to the Indian Administrative Service by notifications dated May 12, 1962, November 29, 1962, April 25, 1963 and March 27, 1965, while his own claim was overlooked. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us has been confined to the short point whether the High Court erred in not dismissing the petition inspite of the inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. That is why we have not thought it necessary to refer to the other facts in details for it will be enough to refer to the admitted facts which bear on the controversy before us. 5. As has been stated, the list of the State Civil Service officers who were found suitable for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service was prepared in 1960, in which the names of the petitioner was not included while the names of respondents 4 to 13, who were junior to him, were included. The petitioner has stated that he felt aggrieved because of his supersession by his juniors in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was informed of its rejection by a letter dated May 31, 1971. He made a further representation to the Chief Secretary on January 2, 1973, and thereafter filed the aforesaid writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 in the Orissa High Court. 6. It would thus appear that there is justification for the argument of the Solicitor General that even though a cause of action arose to the petitioner as far back as 1962, on the rejection of his representation on November 9, 1962, he allowed some eleven years to go by before filing the writ petition. There is no satisfactory explanation of the inordinate delay for, as has been held by this Court in Rabindra Nath Bose and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1972) 2 SCR 697 the mailing of repeated repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
