Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order of the respondent State Government in the Road construction Department, contained in memo No.4936 (S), dated 2-9-1995 (Annexure 1) whereby while rejecting the representation /objection filed by the petitioners pursuant to the order passed in C. W. J. C. No.2183 of 1994 relating to shifting of their seniority vis-a-vis respondent No.3, Raghubansh Prasad singh, has treated 27-12-1972 as the date of appointment of respondent No.3 in the rank of Engineer Assistant and consequently affirming his position at s1. No.366-A of the Gradation List of engineer Assistant, circulated vide letter No.48 dated 6-3-1993 and in the gradation list of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in B. E. S. Class II, circulated vide notification No.3375 (S), dated 21-6-1993 in between S1. No.1164 and 1165 giving him S1. No.1164a by treating his promotion in the said grade with effect from 8-8-75 and, accordingly, placing him above the petitioners No.1 and 2, who in the gradation list of Assistant engineer contained in Annexure 10 are at S1. No.1253 and 1299, respectively. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that respondent No.3 was initially appointed as Engineer Assistant on 27-12-1972 on daily-rated basis. Petitioners no.1 and 2 were appointed in the said capacity after complying with the formalities of facing establishment committee etc. on 13-8-1973 and 10-1-1974, respectively. Respondent No.3 was,however, brought in the regular scale of Engineer Assistant on 21-12-1974. In the rank of Assistant Engineer the petitioners were appointed on 7-5-1976 on ad hoc basis and on 20-8-1977 on regular basis, vide Annexures 3 and 4 respectively whereas respondent No.3 was appointed in the said capacity on 20-10-1976 and 16-12-1977, vide Annexures 7 and 8, respectively. 3. On 2-8-1984 (Annexure 9), a tentative gradation list was circulated in which the petitioners were placed above respondent No.3 and in the final gradation list dated 15-6-1992 (Annexure 10)also they were placed above respondent no.3. However, vide notification dated 21-6-93 (Annexure 11), the seniority of respondent No.3 was modified and he was placed at S1. No.1164-A above the petitioner and vide order dated 24th august, 1994, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis of the aforementioned placement in the seniority list, vide Annexure 11. 4. However, vide notification dated 21-6-93 (Annexure 11), the seniority of respondent No.3 was modified and he was placed at S1. No.1164-A above the petitioner and vide order dated 24th august, 1994, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis of the aforementioned placement in the seniority list, vide Annexure 11. 4. The validity of the said orders dated 21st June, 1993 and 24th August, 1994 were challenged by the petitioners in C. W. J. C. No.2183 of 1994. This court quashed the said orders on the ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. The learned single Judge of this Court further observed that it will be open to the respondent State to consider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons within a period of two months, whereafter the impugned order has been passed. 5. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and on behalf of respondent No.3. In the counter-affidavit of respondents No.1 and 2 it is stated that the post of Engineer Assistant was sanctioned from 27-12-1972 and respondent no.3 was regularised against the said post with effect from the said date, vide order passed in the year 1974, the validity of which was never questioned by the petitioners. It is further stated that the promotion of respondent No.3 as Assistant Engineer was delayed since the matter regarding his seniority was under consideration of the Engineer-in-Chief as his date of joining was not available on record. The same was to be made available by the Rural Engineering Organisation (R. E. O.) and as such, his name was placed at the bottom of the list without fixing his seniority for want of his date of joining in the combined provisional list of the R. E. O. and the Public Works Department which was notified, vide memo dated 9-2-1976 (Annexure B ). It is also stated that perusal of the said letter would indicate that it is stipulated therein that if there is any error in the said list, the same should be reported with necessary supporting documents for correction thereof. R. E. O. , vide letter No.7314 dated 13-9-1979, furnished the date of joining of the petitioners to the Public Works department and having considered all the facts, the seniority of respondent no.3 was shifted to S1. R. E. O. , vide letter No.7314 dated 13-9-1979, furnished the date of joining of the petitioners to the Public Works department and having considered all the facts, the seniority of respondent no.3 was shifted to S1. No.366-A in the cadre of Engineer Assistant. Having regard to the said facts, notification dated 2-9-1995 was issued refuxing his seniority at S1. No.1164-A in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. 6. Respondent No.3 in his counter affidavit has annexed a copy of the order dated 13th September, 1979 as Annexure c whereby his date of appointment as Engineer Assistant was shifted back to 27- 12-1972 when he started working on daily-rated basis. Un-disputedly, the validity of this order was never challenged by any of the petitioners. 7. Dr. Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioners were not aware of this order. As such, there is no occasion for them to challenge the validity of the same. Further it was submitted by him that even thereafter the gradation list showed the names of the petitioners above respondent No.3. As such, only when a change was brought in the gradation list of Assistant Engineer, vide Annexure 11, they filed the present writ application in this Court. It was also submitted by him that the petitioners having been appointed in the regular manner as Engineer Assistant as well as Assistant Engineer with effect from a date prior to respondent no.3, are senior to him and consequently are entitled for preferential treatment in the matter of placement of their names in the gradation list and of promotion. 8. Mr. Mandal, Learned Standing counsel No. X appearing for the State submitted that this Court in its writ jurisdiction may not exercise the power in the facts and circumstances of the present case as irregularity committed at the initial stage has been rectified and justice has been done with respondent no.3 who, admittedly, started working as Engineer Assistant prior to the petitioner and after creation of regular post, his service was regularised with effect from the same date long back in the year 1979 itself but due to nonavailability of record, an error was committed in fixing his seniority as Engineer assistant and consequently as Assistant engineer as well. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Singh, Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that once the service of respondent No.3 was regularised with effect from his initial joining on 27-12-1972, vide order passed long back in september, 1979 and the validity of the same was never questioned by any one in such long period, he could not have been denied the benefit accruing therefrom. As such, the department pursuant to the direction of this Court given in the earlier writ application filed by the petitioners gave opportunity to all the persons, including the petitioners and after complying with the principles of natural justice found that respondent no.3 was erroneously denied of his due seniority and promotion. Accordingly, the order, contained in Annexure 1, which has been impugned in the writ application, was passed by the competent authority. As such, according to Mr. Singh there-is no illegality committed in giving due seniority and promotion to the respondent No.3 vide said order. 10. In reply, Dr. Jha, Learned senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since respondent No.3 was appointed on regular basis from the daily wage employment, his position in the gradation list must be kept below to all those Assistant Engineers who were initially appointed as Engineer Assistants in regular establishment by direct recruitment in the light of the provisions laid down in the letter dated 6th March, 1973. It was further submitted by him that in any view of the matter, it is by now well settled that even the Executive authorities cannot rectify error even if committed after long lapse of time, especially when the seniority stood finally determined. According to him, the principle for not invoking the writ jurisdiction on the ground of delay and laches shall apply to such cases also. In this regard he placed reliance on a decision of the supreme Court in the case of K. R. Mudgal V/s. R. P. Singh, AIR 1986 S. C.2086. 11. I am unable to accept the submissions made by Dr. Jha. It is true that the delay and laches without any explanation are fatal for invoking the writ urisdition of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and normally this Court declines to grant any relief on this account. 11. I am unable to accept the submissions made by Dr. Jha. It is true that the delay and laches without any explanation are fatal for invoking the writ urisdition of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and normally this Court declines to grant any relief on this account. But, in my opinion, the said principle cannot be applied to the facts of the present case; firstly, because respondent No.3 has not approached this Court for invoking the writ jurisdiction for which he would be disentitled to get any relief on the ground of delay and laches and secondly, the error was rectified by the executive long back on 13th September, 1979, when after the creation of regular post the date of regular appointment of respondent No.3 as Engineer Assistant was fixed as 27-12-1972. 12. It is nobodys case that there is any break in service of respondent No.3 and/or he did not act as Engineer Assistant continuously from 27-12-1972, i. e. , a date prior to the petitioners started working as Engineer Assistants. The petitioners never challenged the validity of the aforesaid order of 13th September, 1979 fixing 27-12-1972 as the date of appointment of respondent No.3 in the rank of Engineer Assistant. 13. In view of the said facts, it has to be held that there was obvious error committee by the respondents in fixing seniority of respondent No.3 vis-a-vis the petitioners and consequently, fixing their position in the rank of Assistant engineer which has now been rectified bv the impugned order. Thus, in my opinion, the so-called delay and/or laches will not come in the way of respondent No.3 in getting justice from the competent authority who found error in fixing his seniority in the rank of Engineer Assistant and consequently, in the rank of Assistant Engineer. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ application which is dismissed, but without costs. Petition Dismissed.