JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in the instant writ petition:- (a) That the seniority list (annexure-IX) dated 21.6.83 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents No. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to assign the petitioner position in the seniority list above respondents No. 6 to 42. (b) That the respondent State and Commissioner, Commercial Taxes may be directed not to assign seniority to other respondents in the rank and file of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officers till the decision of the writ petition and if seniority is assigned, same may kindly be quashed. (c) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside, quash and to declare irregular and illegal any further promotions that may be given to respondents 6 to 55 during pendency of this petition or which have given on the basis of seniority list Annexure IX (d) That respondent State may be prohibited not to make promotion amongst the respondents on any of the higher posts till petitioner is promoted to his legal status in the department after assigning his seniority above respondents No. 6 to 42. (e) That all the monetary benefits and other ancillary benefits of promotion and fixation of status and pay may kindly be directed to be given to petitioner after redetermination of the seniority as aforesaid. (f) That respondents may be directed to promote the petitioner on a status not below the status of respondents No. 43 to 55 and in the cadre where at respondents No. 43 to 55 stand, petitioner's seniority may be fixed above them all." 2. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from the service by now and no interim order was issued by this court in favour of the petitioner in the instant writ petition. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has attracted my attention towards Rules 7, 9, and 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (in short the Rules) and vehemently contended that the said rules were not followed and the respondents have not explained as to how they followed the Rules. Reliance was placed on Shanti Raj Singhvi vs. C.P. Mathur and others ( 1995(2) RLR 516 = 1996(2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 200). 3. I have given my anxious considerations to the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 4. Reliance was placed on Shanti Raj Singhvi vs. C.P. Mathur and others ( 1995(2) RLR 516 = 1996(2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 200). 3. I have given my anxious considerations to the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 4. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened after a lapse of reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. 5. In B.S. Bajwa and another vs. State of Punjab ( 1998(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 laches 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 and this position was known to 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) 6. In view of the ratio propounded in B.S. Bajwa and another vs. State of Punjab (supra) , I am of the view that after an inordinate delay of such a long period the petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen the matter. Since rights inter se of the persons had crystallised which cannot be permitted to reopen the matter after such a long period. 7. Since rights inter se of the persons had crystallised which cannot be permitted to reopen the matter after such a long period. 7. 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. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.Petition Dismissed. *******