JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners seek to quash the promotion circulars dated Sept. 27, 1978, Nov. 27, 1978, July 4, 1980 and August 4, 1980 as well as the policy of conversion dated August 28, 1984. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to promote the petitioners from the date persons similarly situated have been promoted in the cadre of J.MG.S. - (Officers Grade II) (Head Cashiers) with effect from April 2, 1979 with all consequential benefits. Other reliefs nave also been asked for. 2. Admittedly the writ petition was filed on August 31, 1988. Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the writ petition. it was canvassed that all the petitioners had been in service on the dates of issuance of the circulars and they were aware that their colleagues i.e. all Cashiers, including Deputy Head Cashiers. Clerk-cum-Cashiers serving in the Cash Department and Cashiers-in-charge of Cash who were confirmed in the Bank's service on Is or before December 31, 1972 were promoted to officers Grade II (Head Cashiers) with effect from April 2, 1979. None of the petitioners challenged the validity of the circulars. Now the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of circulars after 8/10 years. It was further contended that the petitioners were promoted as Officers Junior Management Grade Scale I with effect from July 1, 1982 vide the order dated June 25, 1982 but no grievance, representations, objections or protest was raised by the petitioners with regard to their promotion. The petitioners therefore acquiesced in the promotions and the promotion policies. it has further been urged that the seniority list published on January 1, 1986 was not challenged by the petitioners. It is only when the seniority list as on 1.1.1987 was published, the petitioners made representation against the same. The petitioners have also not impleaded the necessary parties. Hundreds of officers throughout the country, who are all specifically identifiable and who would be prejudicial affected if the prayers in the writ petition are granted have not been impleaded as respondents. The writ petition is therefore not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 3. On the other hand Mr. The petitioners have also not impleaded the necessary parties. Hundreds of officers throughout the country, who are all specifically identifiable and who would be prejudicial affected if the prayers in the writ petition are granted have not been impleaded as respondents. The writ petition is therefore not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 3. On the other hand Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that earlier to 1985 the Channel of promotion for Clerks and Cashiers were in their respective channels and for the first time when the as seniority list as on 1.1.1986 was published an integrated cadre was formed. Since the publication took some time, the book-let was prepared by the Bank came in the office of the Bank somewhere in the month of Sept./Oct. 1986. Thereafter the petitioners and their colleagues submitted representations and since the matter was under consideration at that time the petitioners were advised not to approach to the court, as such the petitioners had approached the court at the earliest possible. The petitioners were not aggrieved by their promotions, as the promotions were accorded to them on the basis of their seniority list being separately determined by the Bank in the cadre of Cashiers. As such there was no occasion at that time to make any representation or raise their grievances against the order of their promotion. The promotions of Cashiers as JMGS (Head Cashiers) in the year 1979 and 1980 were made in their respective channel of promotion and the petitioners were not considered at the time of promotions made. Since the promotion channels were separately maintained there was no grudge for the petitioners to challenge the same before the court of law. The petitioners become aggrieved only after integrated cadre was formed and they were placed above without there any rule which determined seniority above them ignoring the total length service. After the seniority list as on 1.1.1986 was published representations were submitted by the colleagues of the petitioners and subsequently by the petitioners also. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have not claimed their seniority against one individual. The petitioners raised the grievance against the policy laid down by the Bank, as such the Bank is only necessary party and for the present adjudication of the writ petition the impleadment of other persons is not necessary. 4. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have not claimed their seniority against one individual. The petitioners raised the grievance against the policy laid down by the Bank, as such the Bank is only necessary party and for the present adjudication of the writ petition the impleadment of other persons is not necessary. 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions advanced before me and of carefully scanned the material on record. 5. Admittedly the promotion circulars dated September 27, 1978, November 27, 1978, ,July 4, 1980 and August 8, 1989 have been assailed be the petitioners and the writ petition was filed on August 31, 1988. The petitioners have not acted with due diligence and promptitude. In my as considered opinion if the policy of conversion dated August 28, 1984 is set aside it would prejudicially affect the rights of many persons employed in the Bank, under these circumstances relief cannot be granted to the petitioners without impleading the necessary parties. The writ petition suffers from delay and laches well as non-joinder of necessary parties therefore it is not necessary for me to go into the merits and demerits of the case. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced before me by Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and there is no relevance to refer the case law cited before me by the learned counsel for, the parties. The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. Costs easy.Writ Petition dismissed. *******