JUDGMENT 1. Though this matter was listed in default, but with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter was heard. 2. The Special Appeal has been preferred under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.1.1998 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5648/1991 by which the appellant had been given promotion on the post of Assessor from the date of filing the writ petition i.e. 28.10.1991 and not from the date his junior had been promoted. 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the appellant was employed as a Revenue Inspector with the respondents and was over and above in the seniority list published on 7.6.1988 from one Shri Vijay Singh Gehlot. The services of the petitioner were governed by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate and Ministerial Staff) Rules, 1963 and according to the said Rules, the Revenue Inspector having 5 years' experience is eligible to be promoted on the post of Assessor. One Shri Harish Chandra Mathur was promoted as Assessor from Revenue Inspector vide order dated 4.5.1974. Shri Vijay Singh Gehlot challenged the promotion order on the ground that this Harish Chandra Mathur was junior to him in the seniority list of Revenue Inspectors. His writ petition No. 1428/1980 was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 7.8.1991 and the respondents were directed to consider the promotion of Shri Vijay Singh Gehlot and if found eligible to promote him as Assessor w.e.f. 4.5.1974 and it was further held that in case there was only post of Assessor in Jodhpur Municipal Council, they must move the State Government for creating the supernumerary post. 4. It appears that in pursuance of the said order, Shri Vijay Singh Gehlot was promoted with retrospective effect and retired on 31.8.1991. The appellant filed writ petition No. 5648/1991 claiming the same benefit which has been given by this Court in Vijay Singh Gehlot on the ground that he was senior to Vijay Singh Gehlot also. Thus, he was entitled to be promoted from the date he had been promoted i.e. 4.5.1974. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider his case and promote him from the date of filing the writ petition i.e. 28.10.1991. Hence, this appeal. 5. Thus, he was entitled to be promoted from the date he had been promoted i.e. 4.5.1974. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider his case and promote him from the date of filing the writ petition i.e. 28.10.1991. Hence, this appeal. 5. It is evident from the aforesaid facts that the post of Assessor Is one and it is to be filled up by promotion from the Revenue Inspectors. The State/Authority cannot be forced to make payment of wages etc. to two persons on one post. If Shri Mathur had been been promoted wrongly, his promotion was challenged by Shri Vijay Singh Gehlot and got the relief in 1991. The appellant had been sleeping over his rights and did not challenge the promotion order of Shri Mathur made w.e.f. 4.5.1974 and first time he filed the writ petition on 28.10.1991 i.e. after expiry of more than 17 years 5 months. The sole contention raised by the appellant's counsel is that being senior to Shri Vijay Singh Gehlot, he was entitled for the same relief in spite of delay and latches on his part and even if he had slept over the matter for a period of more than 17 years and 5 months as he approached the Court just after the judgment in Vijay Singh Gehlot's case. 6. So far as the question of claiming any impetus from the judgment procured by any diligent person from a court of law is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently repelled the similar contention. 7. In State of Karnataka & ors. v. S.M. Kotrayaya & ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered Ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and (aches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches. 8. Same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Lal & ors. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches. 8. Same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Lal & ors. v. State of Haryana & ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366 , observing as under: "Suffice it to state that appellants may be sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake-up when they had impetus from Veerpal Chauhan and Ajit Singh's ratio..... desperate attempts of the appellants to re-do the seniority, held by them in various cadre.... are not amenable to the judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well." 9. In M/s. Roop Diamonds & ors. v. Union of India & ors., AIR 1989 SC 674 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case where petitioner wanted to get the relief on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court rejected the petition on the ground of delay and laches observing as under: "There is one more ground which basically sets the present case apart. Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they have not perused for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and close to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided." 10. Therefore, the aforesaid submission is not worth acceptance. 11. In. view of the above, as the appellant did not agitate the issue before the Court at appropriate time diligently, he was not entitled for any relief whatsoever. However, as the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge has not been challenged by the department, the relief granted to him already cannot be disturbed 12. In view of the above, we find no force in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******