Judgment :- 1. I take the view that this petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches. 2. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are employees of the 1st respondent, the Cochin Devaswom Board, Trichur. Ext. P9 is an order of the Board dated 11-6-1956 by which it reversed an earlier decision and held that the 2nd respondent should be considered as senior to the petitioner in service. The Board said: "In view of what is stated above the Board are inclined to re-open the orders contained in the Board's proceedings dated 27-12-1950 on L. Dis.1896/50 and Board's proceedings dated 19-1-1953 on M. 1236/51 and the Board review the same in the light of the above facts and cancel both the orders and order to maintain the seniority of Sri. T. Narayana Menon (2nd respondent) which he was enjoying prior to those orders". 3. The prayer in the petition is: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Honourable High Court may be pleased to call for or remove all papers and proceedings relating to the orders of the first respondent dated 11-61956 (Ext. P9) and 1-5-1957 and to quash the said orders by the issue of a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order." 4. The order of 1-5-1957 by which the 2nd respondent was appointed as officiating Devaswom Commissioner is no more than a consequential order passed on the seniority recognised by Ext. P9. The circumstances in which the order of 1-5-1957 was passed is stated as follows in Para.15 of the affidavit in support of the petition: "On 29-4-1957 Sri P. Krishna Menon tendered his resignation. The Board accepted this resignation on 1-5-1957, and have appointed the 2nd respondent as officiating Devaswom Commissioner by order M. 1000/57 dated 1-5-1957. The said appointment in supersession of my claims is illegal, "arbitrary and ultra vires of the powers of the Board". There can be no doubt that the preference of the 2nd respondent to the petitioner for the appointment concerned was no more than the natural and inevitable consequence of the seniority declared by Ext. P9. 5. The petitioner has not challenged the correctness of Ext. P9 dated 11-6-1956 before this court except by this petition filed on 13-5-1957 and I consider that the long delay should disentitle him to relief under Art.226 of the Constitution. 6. P9. 5. The petitioner has not challenged the correctness of Ext. P9 dated 11-6-1956 before this court except by this petition filed on 13-5-1957 and I consider that the long delay should disentitle him to relief under Art.226 of the Constitution. 6. The only explanation offered appears in Para.14 of the petitioner's affidavit: "I made representations to the Board by petitions dated 9-7-1956 and 21-8-1956 complaining against the orders passed by the Board on 11-6-1956. Copies of the said petitions are filed herewith and marked as Ext. P.10 and p. 11. The Board passed an order dated 3-9-1956 refusing to interfere with the orders already passed." The order on Ext. P10 is: "Orders already passed are not liable to be reviewed since all the aspects of the matter were considered and disposed of. The petition is therefore rejected" (Ext. RI) and the order on Ext. P11: "There is no reason to interfere with the orders already passed because all grounds were considered at that time" (Ex. R2) 7. I do not consider the petitions of 9-7-1956 and 21-8-56 as offering any excuse for the delay. Such repeated petitions may be indicative of the petitioner's persistence or optimism but they cannot possibly provide an excuse for the delay that has occurred. Even calculating the time from the dates on which those petitions were rejected, namely 24-7-1956 and 3-9-1956, over eight months had elapsed before this petition was filed, and that should be sufficient to entail" its dismissal on the ground of laches. 8. The principles governing this matter have been fully discussed in 1953 K.L.T. 703,1954 K.L.T. 427 (F. B) and 443 (F. B.),1955 K.L.T. 651 and 1956 K.L.T. 238. It is unnecessary to discuss them again, and as I have already stated I see no reason to excuse the delay that has occurred in this case. 9. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Devaswom Board but only a statement dated 2-8-1957. The statement reads as follows: "The impugned order dated 11-6-1956 was passed by the first respondent after mature consideration and hearing both the parties. The reasons that led the Board to take that decision are explained in detail in that order itself, a copy of which the petitioner has produced and marked as Ex. P9. In the circumstances the first respondent did not think it necessary to file a detailed counter-affidavit in the matter. The reasons that led the Board to take that decision are explained in detail in that order itself, a copy of which the petitioner has produced and marked as Ex. P9. In the circumstances the first respondent did not think it necessary to file a detailed counter-affidavit in the matter. The Cochin Devaswom Board is ready to produce any file relating to the matter in its possession which the Honourable Court deems it necessary to see for a proper disposal of this petition." In the view 1 have taken it is unnecessary to enter into the merits of the case and I have not done so in this judgment. 10. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.