JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this court seeking following directions : (i) the respondents be restrained from reviewing the allotment of year or making fresh allotment of year against the year 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1971 from promotees of the year 1970 and 1971; (ii) the respondents be further directed to review the promotion against the year 1970 and 1972 for 7 and 14 posts respectively from the original selection make by them; (iii) further promotion on the post of Executive Engineer be made from existing seniority lists of Assistant Engineer (Civil). 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have wrongly determined the quota of the years 1968, 1969 and 1971. Further they have wrongly determined the promotion quota which disturbed the ratio of 3 : 1. In the year 1967 there was no promotion quota prescribed by any rule or order and the rules in this 5shaif came into force on July 19, 1968, Wrong determination of the promotion quota adversely affect the seniority of the petitioner as the petitioner i.e. seriously aggrieved by the order dated May 12, 1987 (Annexure-13). The order is violative of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Services of Engineers (Public Health Engineering Department) Rules, 1968 published on July 19, 1968. No reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents. 3. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 4. A look at the ground (h) raised in the instant writ petition goes to show that granting relief to the petitioner would disturb the entire seniority list of the Executive Engineers. In the aforesaid ground, the petitioner has averred that the illegal increase of the quota of 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1971 would make the illegal promotees of the year 1970 and 1972 senior to the petitioner and would therefore make them eligible for the post of Executive Engineers which would seriously infringe the right of promotion of petitioner. Admittedly the affected persons have not been impleaded as parties in the writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance Ram Swaroop Gwalera and others v. State of Rajasthan and another (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3105/1996 decided on May 16, 1997 and M.S.L. Path v. State of Maharashtra and others (1997) 11 SCC page 361 . 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance Ram Swaroop Gwalera and others v. State of Rajasthan and another (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3105/1996 decided on May 16, 1997 and M.S.L. Path v. State of Maharashtra and others (1997) 11 SCC page 361 . 5. The rights of the petitioner as well as the affected persons have since been crystallised therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioner in absence of the affected persons. 6. In B.S. Bajwa and another v. State of Punjab 1988 (2) SCC 523 their Lordships of the Supreme Court in pare 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 as In 1984 which was lone 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) 7. In these circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-impleadment of the affected parties. 8. The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******