JUDGMENT 1. - Matter was finally heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners, who are the officers in the Rajasthan Administrative Service, have sought following reliefs in the instant writ petition- (i) to direct the respondents to hold the meeting of the D.P.C. of the petitioners for filling up the vacancies of the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 at the earliest and in any case before the D.P.C. is held for the vacancy of the 1976 batch direct recruits for the years 1998-99; (ii) to strike down the action of the respondents in not holding the D.P.C. for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 without considering the case of the petitioners for the purpose of promotions to the super time scale and declare the same as illegal and void; (iii) to direct the respondents that in case the petitioners are found successful for purposes of promotion to super time scale either for the year 1996-97 or 1997-98 the benefit of promotion be given with retrospective effect and with all consequential benefits in regard to their seniority, salary and perks. 3. The contextual facts depict that the petitioners had been appointed in the year 1978 after having been found successful under the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment)Rules 1976 (for short the 'Emergency Rules of 1976'). The petitioners were given promotion from Junior Scale to Senior Scale and further to Selection Scale. The petitioners had been promoted to selection scale in the year 1992 as under- C.R. Chaudhary Feb. 1992 B.M. Sharma August 1992 A.R. Pathan Feb. 1992. Rule 25 of the Emergency Rules of 1976 provides the criteria for fixing the seniority in regard to the recruitee officers thus- "25. Seniority.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 33 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 seniority of persons appointed to the Service under these rules shall be on the basis of a notional year of Allotment determined as follows : Year of Allotment=1976 (N 1+Half of N 2), where- N 1 means : completed years, including broken periods, after the age 28 years of employment or practice of profession as on 1.4.1976, with regular monthly emoluments therefrom amounting to at least र 625/-. N 2 means : completed years, after the age of 28 years of employment or practice of profession as on 1.4.1976 with regular monthly emoluments therefrom amounting to less than र 625/-. N 2 means : completed years, after the age of 28 years of employment or practice of profession as on 1.4.1976 with regular monthly emoluments therefrom amounting to less than र 625/-. (2) After assignment of years of Allotment under sub-rule (1), a person shall be placed in the list of Rajasthan Administrative Service Officers immediately below the junior most Rajasthan Administrative Service Officer appointed by direct recruitment in that year. (3) Among persons appointed to the grade under these rules who are assigned the same year of Allotment, inter se seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. Vide notification dated December 15, 1976, Rule 25 was amended thus- "the expression "year of allotment- 1976" and the expression "1976" wherever occurring in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 shall be substituted by the expressions 'year of allotment- 1997' and the expression "1977" respectively." 4. The petitioners averred in the petition that explanation as provided for N 1 and N 2 were not applicable in the cases of the petitioners therefore notional year of allotment for them was the basic year, namely, 1976 (after amendment 1977). The petitioners, who were promoted to Selection Scale in Feb. and August 1992 completed three years of service in Selection Scale if not on April, 1995, then in any case on April 1, 1996. Likewise they have also completed a minimum service of 20 years for the purposes of promotion to super time scale as contained in Rule 32(3) of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954 (for short the Rules of 1954). Rule 32(3) of the Rules of 1954 provides thus- "(3) No member of the Service who has not completed 3 years service on the selection scale posts and 20 years service in all on the posts included in the Service shall be eligible for appointment on the supertime scale posts." 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents did not allot them 1976 notional year in accordance with Rule 25 of the Emergency Rules of 1976 and the petitioners were not being considered for the promotion to the supertime scale for the vacancies of the year 1996-97 and 1997-98. 6. The respondents in their reply pleaded that the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit of back year seniority and year of allotment 1976 as per formula provided in Rule 25 of the Emergency Rules of 1976. 6. The respondents in their reply pleaded that the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit of back year seniority and year of allotment 1976 as per formula provided in Rule 25 of the Emergency Rules of 1976. Their experience for supertime scale will be counted from their date of joining in RAS, which, in respect of each of the petitioners is as under- C.R. Chaudhary - November 11, 1978 B.M. Sharma - November 9, 1978 A.R. Pathan - November 11, 1978 The respondents further pleaded that provisional seniority list (Annexure R11) was published on March 2.3, 1981 and after considering objections received, the final seniority list was published on Feb. 1, 1983 (Annexure R/2). If the petitioners had any objection regarding back year seniority and year of allotment they should have filed objections at the time when objections were invited. The final seniority list issued on Feb. 1, 1983 cannot be assailed now. The petitioners had efficacious alternative remedy of filing the appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal which had not been availed by the petitioners and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 7. Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel on April 6, 1998, moved an application on behalf of Smt. Pramila Surana, G.L. Gupta, and Sunil Dhariwal for impleading them as respondents in the writ petition. This Court vide order dated May 12, 1998 disposed of the application observing that at the time of hearing of the writ petition it will be assessed that the impleadment of the applicants is required or not. The applicants, however, were permitted to file reply to show that they are affected parties. The intervenors thereafter submitted reply with the averments that the petitioners were considered for their assignment in accordance with Rule 25 of the Emergency Rules of 1976 vide notice dated March 23, 1981 and after examining their candidature for assignment of seniority, the State Govt. came to the conclusion that they were not entitled to back year seniority. The said notice was published and made operative for all times to come. All future promotions in senior scale/ selection scale were made in accordance with the seniority determined in terms of notice dated march 23, 1981. came to the conclusion that they were not entitled to back year seniority. The said notice was published and made operative for all times to come. All future promotions in senior scale/ selection scale were made in accordance with the seniority determined in terms of notice dated march 23, 1981. In the seniority list published in consonance with the said notice, the petitioners found placement at S.No. 141, 142 and 144 respectively whereas the intervenors were placed at S.No. 120, 121 and 127. 8. Mr. N.K. Maloo, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised two preliminary objections in respect of maintainability of the writ petition. The first objection was in respect of inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and the second related to availability of efficacious alternative remedy. 9. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 10. Admittedly, the provisional seniority list (Annexure-1) was published on March 23, 1981 and after considering objections received, the final seniority list was published on Feb. 1, 1983 (Annexure-R/2). The petitioners were not assigned back year seniority in the final seniority list and they were placed at S.No. 141, 142 and 144 respectively. It appears that the petitioners never objected their placement in the final seniority list and all promotions in senior scale/ selection scale were made by the State Government in accordance with the final seniority list. Mr. C.K. Garg, learned Senior Counsel vehemently canvassed that the decision in S.P. Rai's cases was judgment in rem and in view of the said judgment the State Government was duty bound to consider the claim of back year seniority of the petitioners. The petitioners were compelled to file the writ petition in view of casual attitude of the respondents towards the career and prospects of promotions of the petitioners as the respondents did not care to reply the notice for demand of justice dated March 2, 1998 (Annexure-2). Mr. Garg learned counsel contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case argument in respect of delay and laches does not survive. Reliance was placed on the State of M.P. v. Syed Qamar Ali 1967 SLR 228 , and Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1974 SC 259 . Mr. Mr. Garg learned counsel contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case argument in respect of delay and laches does not survive. Reliance was placed on the State of M.P. v. Syed Qamar Ali 1967 SLR 228 , and Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1974 SC 259 . Mr. C.K.Garg, learned counsel further urged that by virtue of Rule 25 of the Emergency Rules of 1976 the petitioners ought to have given the back year seniority with effect from 1976 or after amendment in the Rules of 1976, from 1977. In view of the direction given in S.P. Rai's case (supra) the officers who were also appointed in 1978 had been assigned the seniority as per formula given in Rule 25 and the petitioners can not be discriminated. 11. A bare look at the Notice dated March 23, 1981 (Annexure-1) demonstrates that the names of the petitioners were shown in Annexure II appended with the said notice at S.No. 27, 26 and 30 respectively and in column No.7 "Back year or seniority" no year was assigned to them. Officers who were affected by the said provisional seniority list published vide Notice dated 23, 1981 had to file objections. 12. The State of Rajasthan after considering all objections published final seniority list on Feb. 1, 1983 (Annexure R/2). The claim of the petitioners was rejected and they were not assigned back year seniority as claimed by them. The petitioners did not assail the final seniority list published on Feb. 1, 1983, even in the instant writ petition filed after about 15 years on March 27, 1998 as is evident from the prayer sought by them in the writ petition. 13. In B.S. Bajwa and another v. State of Punjab 1999(2) SCC 523 their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 7 observed thus- "Having heard both sides we are satisfied that the writ petition was wrongly entertained and allowed by the Single Judge and, therefore, the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench have both to be set aside. The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of ]aches because the grievance was made by B.S.Bajwa and B.D. Gupta only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of ]aches because the grievance was made by B.S.Bajwa and B.D. Gupta only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the other aforesaid persons and the rights inter se had crystallised which ought not have been reopened after the lapse of such a long period. At every stage others were promoted before B.S.Bajwa and B.D.Gupta right from the beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situation after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition." (Emphasis supplied) 14. In the instant case also the petitioners had slept over the matter for a period of 15 years and they did not assail the final seniority list published on Feb. 1, 1983. After decision in S.P. Rai's case (supra) the petitioners suddenly got up and served notice for demand of justice to the respondents and instituted the writ petition on March 27, 1998 without calling in question the final seniority list. During the entire period of 15 years rights inter se of the persons placed above the petitioners in the final seniority list had crystallised and the petitioners cannot be permitted to reopen the matter after inordinate delay of 15 years. Unless the final seniority list is disturbed, no relief as sought by the petitioners in the writ petition can be granted to them. 15. In view of the above conclusion, it is not necessary for me to express any opinion on the merits of the other arguments raised by Mr. C.K. Garg, learned Senior Counsel. 16. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******