ORDER : Sujata V. Manohar, J. The State has preferred this appeal against the confirming decree in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff's right to be considered for promotion to the higher post from the rank of Sub-Inspector to that of Inspector and all other subsequent promotions have been infringed and such infringement has prejudiced the plaintiff's case. It is not disputed that a show-cause notice was issued to the plaintiff to indicate as to why he should not be debarred from crossing the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1-4-1973. The appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, however, allowed him to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1-4-1973. Subsequent to the said order, the plaintiff has been confirmed as Sub-Inspector of Police w.e.f. 1-4-1973 and later on promoted to the post of Inspector as well as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Only in the year 1989, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he should have been included in the 'F' list for being considered for promotion to the post of Inspector in the year 1967 and thereafter in the years 1968-69, 1970-71 and also the subsequent promotion to the rank of Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police on that basis. The defendant in the written submission took the positive stand that the suit was barred by limitation which was Issue 3 before the learned trial Judge. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was not barred by limitation by holding that non-consideration of the plaintiff's case for being included in the 'F' list and the consequential orders passed thereon are all void and therefore no limitation is prescribed for such a case. The said conclusion of the trial Judge was affirmed by the lower appellate court and the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine. 2. The sole question which is raised in this appeal is that on the face of the facts narrated in the plaint as well as the relief sought for, the suit is clearly barred by limitation, as this suit is one for declaration and governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act. To appreciate this contention, we have perused the original plaint and the bundle of facts averred therein. To appreciate this contention, we have perused the original plaint and the bundle of facts averred therein. On going through the same, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the suit is clearly barred by limitation as the declaration sought for relates to the years 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971 and until and unless those declarations are made, the consequential declaration sought for cannot be granted at all. The suit is one governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act where the period of limitation is of three years when the right to sue accrues. On going through the plaint, the right to sue can be said to have accrued on 8-11-1974 when the plaintiff was allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1-4-1973 and taking the period of limitation as three years from that date, the suit is obviously barred by limitation. 3. We accordingly allow this appeal and dismiss the plaintiff’s suit. No costs. Appeal allowed.