JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this court seeking following reliefs : (i) promotion of respondent No. 5 on the post of Senior Manager vide order dated April 26, 1988 be quashed and the petitioner he promoted on the post of Senior Manager with all consequential benefits from the date when respondent No. 5 was promoted. (ii) respondents 2 to 4 be removed from the pots of Managers (Tourist Officers) as they were from the ministerial cadre and they were not having requisite experience/qualifications as prescribed by the Rules and their promotions be also set aside. (iii) to finalise the seniority list dated January 17, 1982 and after finalising the same promotion on the post of Senior Manager be ordered and the respondents 2 to 5 may be treated as junior to the petitioner. (iv) Order of absorption of respondent R.C. Mathur dated 30.12.1989 as Assistant Tourist Officer and orders of promotion dated 30.12.1989 of respondents 2 to 4 be quashed and set-aide and the petitioner be treated as senior to respondents 2 to 5 and he be placed at S.No. 4-A of the final seniority list and the names of respondents 2 to 5 be excluded from the seniority list. The petitioner be promoted on the post of Senior Manager w.e.f. April 6, 1988 from the date of other junior persons were promoted with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief resume of the facts is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Tourist Officer after being selected by the selection committee by the order dated 4.12.1078 and joined the duties on 12.12.1978. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Manager/Tourist Officer by the order dated December 28, 1981 and confirmed on the said post vide order dated March 21, 1983 with effect from January 10, 1983. By the subsequent order dated Feb. 2, 1984 the date of confirmation of the petitioner was changed from January 10, 1983 to December 27, 1982. The respondent No. 2 Shri N.L. Sharma, who was UDC in the Tourist Department after giving option absorbed as Senior Office Assistant and the petitioner was absorbed as Assistant Tourist Officer. The name of the petitioner was shown at S.No. 9 and the name of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 were shown at S.No. 12, 13 and respectively in the absorption order dated August 28, 1981. The name of the petitioner was shown at S.No. 9 and the name of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 were shown at S.No. 12, 13 and respectively in the absorption order dated August 28, 1981. Against the name of the petitioner post of Assistant Tourist Officer was shown and against the names of respondents 2, 3 and 4 U.D.Cs. and L.D.C. were mentioned. The respondent Roop Chand Mathur was absorbed as House Assistant and his name was shown at S.No. 15 treating him as L.D.C. in the absorption order dated August 28, 1981. The respondent Rajasthan Paryyam Vikas Nigam Ltd. (in short `Corporation') issued provisional seniority list on January 17, 1987 and the name of the petitioner was shown at S. No. 10, whereas the names of the respondents N.L. Sharma and N.L. Verma were shown at S. Nos. 5 and 7. The petitioner submitted representation against the provisional seniority list dated January 17, 1987. Subsequently the respondents 2 and 3 were promoted and confirmed as Tourist Officer (Manager) with effect from December 28, 1981 The respondent No. 4 R.C. Mathur was promoted as Manager vide order dated July 24, 1982 and thereafter on regular basis as Manager vide order dated 26.4.1983. The respondent No. 5 Shri Brij Kishore was shown at S.No. 19 in the provisional seniority list dated January 17, 1987 was promoted as Senior Manages by the order dated April 26, 1988. In the final seniority list dated December 30, 1989, the petitioner was shown at S.No. 11 whereas the respondents Niranjan Lal Sharma, Nand Lal Verma and Roop land Mathur were shown at S. Nos. 5, 7 and 6 these respondents were also promoted as Senior Manager vide orders dated 30.12.1989 and 2.1.1990. All these orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 3. The respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 filed their separate replies to the writ petition. It has been averred in the replies that the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffers from the vice of delay and laches. The absorption of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 was made in the year 1981 and the petitioner was knowing the same. 1, 2, 4 and 5 filed their separate replies to the writ petition. It has been averred in the replies that the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffers from the vice of delay and laches. The absorption of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 was made in the year 1981 and the petitioner was knowing the same. The respondents 2, 3 and 4 were also promoted in the year 1981 and 1982 and the petitioner was having the knowledge of the aforesaid orders On 17.9.1981 general transfer order of Tourist Officer was issued wherein the name of the respondent No. 2 was shown at S. No. 19 as is Assistant Tourist Officer and the respondent No. 3 as Tourist Officer at S.No. and the respondent No. 4 was shown as Assistant Tourist Officer at S. No. 38 and the petitioner was shown at S. No. 41 as Assistant Tourist Officer. The respondents in the reply submitted that the petitioner must have seen this order and must have come to know of the appointment/promotion of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 and yet he has not challenged the same. In the writ petition the petitioner has mentioned that he did riot know about the promotion of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 and could only know of the same on issuance of the provisional seniority list dated January 17, 1987. The respondents averred that this statement of the petitioner is palpably false. The has petitioner has narrated false facts in the writ petition. The petitioner has not challenged the absorption of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 vide order dated December 28, 1981 and no prayer has been made in the writ petition to quash the aforesaid orders. Since the petitioner has not challenged the absorption of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 no relief could be granted to him and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on these grounds 4. Mr. Rajendra Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that in a writ of quo warranto delay in filing the writ petition is not fatal. Mr. Rajendra Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that in a writ of quo warranto delay in filing the writ petition is not fatal. Reliance was placed on Ram Chandra Shankar Deodhar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1974(1) S.L.R. 470 , Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab (1992(1) Service Cases Today 493 , Surat Singh v. Secretary of Government, Punjab (1993(3) Service Cases Today page 12 , and Darshan Lal v. State of Haryana and others (1999(2) Service Law Reporter 76 . Mr. Soni, learned counsel also canvassed that the ratio of B.S. Bajwa and another v. State of Punjab and others (1998(2) Supreme Court Cases page 523 is not applicable in the facts of instant case. 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents concealed material facts. The petitioner had knowledge of the fact that the respondent No. 2 had been promoted as Tourist Officer on the recommendation of the Selection Committee by an order of the Corporation dated December 28, 1981. This post was redesigned as Manager Grade I by an order of the Corporation dated February 15, 1982 and he was confirmed as Manager with effect from December 27, 1982 by an order of the Corporation dated March 21, 1983. The petitioner had remained posted at Jaipur and had full knowledge of all these orders, but he had deliberately concealed these facts. The petitioner has not sought prayer for quashing the orders dated August 28, 1981, December 28, 1981 and March 21, 1983. Even the order dated August 28, 1981 regarding adhoc promotion of the respondent No. 2 has not been challenged. The petitioner has challenged the seniority list dated January 17, 1987, which is provisional. The writ petition has been filed after 7 years of the absorption and promotion of the is respondent No. 2. The petitioner kept silence for seven years after the Issuance of aforesaid orders, is a serious question and in absence of unexplained delay the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. I am of the considered view that in the absence of any challenge to the orders dated August 28, 1981 and March 21, 1983, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. I am of the considered view that in the absence of any challenge to the orders dated August 28, 1981 and March 21, 1983, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In view of the ratio propounded in AIR 1966 SC page 175 no relief can be given to the petitioner against the provisional seniority list, even though promotion might have been made on the basis of such provisional list. The ratio of case law cited by Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The writ petition submitted by the petitioner cannot be treated as writ of quo warranto. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to explain the delay in filing the writ petition. Undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and in absence of challenge of aforesaid orders, it will not be proper to reopen the question of seniority after such a long delay, since the rights of the parties intense have already been crystallised. 7. In view of what I have observed above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.Writ petition allowed. *******