S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches as rightly opined by the learned single Judge. The appellant is the writ petitioner and he filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: ". . . the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus- 1. directing the respondents 1 and 2 to accord seniority to the petitioner over respondents 3 to 5 in the category of superintendent by granting a notional date of promotion taking into account of petitioner s eligibility and ( 2 ) CONSIDER promoting the petitioner to the next higher categories of Accounts officer and Administrative Manager; ( 3 ) REPATRIATE respondents 6 and 7 in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 180 Environment, Forest, energy, Science and Technology department dated 26. 12. 1996 and Rule 15 of Rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 3 dated 1. 1. 1979 as they are not qualified, and pass such other order or orders. " 2. The facts relevant to the decision- making be noted briefly as under: The petitioner made entry into the service of a. P. Pollution Control Board (for short, the board) as L. D. C. on 6. 3. 1982; he was subsequently promoted to the post of u. D. C. on 14. 7. 1987, as Superintendent on 14. 5. 1997 and as Assistant Manager on 21. 1. 2000. By the time the petitioner made entry into the service of Board on 6. 3. 1982. respondents 3 to 5, who were also initially directly recruited by the Board as L. D. Cs. , were further promoted to the post of u. D. Cs. Assistant Managers etc. It appears, respondents 6 and 7 were initially the government employees and on constitution of the Board, they were deputed to serve the Board. Further, the services of the 6th respondent were absorbed permanently in the Board on 9. 5. 1994 whereas the services of the 7th respondent were absorbed on 22. 5. 1992, and after their absorption into the service of the Board, they have also earned many promotions. In the context of the above facts, the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 1998 seeking the reliefs noticed above. 3. 5. 1994 whereas the services of the 7th respondent were absorbed on 22. 5. 1992, and after their absorption into the service of the Board, they have also earned many promotions. In the context of the above facts, the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 1998 seeking the reliefs noticed above. 3. The learned single Judge, having opined that in matters relating to seniority and promotion the aggrieved employees should approach the Court for relief within a reasonable time and since the petitioner did not pursue such steps within a reasonable time, no relief could be granted at this distance of time, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal by the aggrieved petitioner. ( 4 ) WE have heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner. Sri J. Sudheer, with his usual persuasiveness and force contended that here is a case where several promotions granted to respondents 3 to 5 are ex facie illegal and in contravention of the statutory rules , and, therefore, this Court should step in and grant the relief to the petitioner and the Court cannot refuse the relief on the technical ground of delay and laches. Alternatively, the learned Counsel contended that this is not a writ petition which is liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of delay and laches, because, none of the rights flowing "from several promotions granted by the Board to respondents 3 to 5 have fructified into vested rights. With regard to the reliefs claimed by the petitioner against respondents 6 and 7, Sri J. Sudheer would contend that the practice of the board in allowing the deputationists to occupy the posts in the administrative echelon of the Board is not supported by law and the action of the Board in availing the services of respondents 6 and 7 and their subsequent absorption in the Board on a permanent basis is totally arbitrary and violative of the statutory rules. Sri J. Sudheer also highlighted the alleged irregularities and illegalities committed by the Board in promoting the contesting respondents to various posts without they possessing the prescribed eligibilities in terms of experience and passing of departmental tests and acquisition of other qualifications etc. Sri J. Sudheer also highlighted the alleged irregularities and illegalities committed by the Board in promoting the contesting respondents to various posts without they possessing the prescribed eligibilities in terms of experience and passing of departmental tests and acquisition of other qualifications etc. We do not find any necessity to refer to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant touching the merits of the matter, because, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. ( 5 ) THE facts stated supra speak for themselves. It is trite, in order to grant the relief to the petitioner as prayed for, the Court necessarily should quash the said premises to the 1st respondent within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the order and if he failed to do so, the 3rd respondent was directed to take action under Section 84 of the Act. The question of taking action under Section 84 of the Act arises only when the encroacher failed to obey the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 83 (4) of the Act, which gives rise for his eviction, by the Assistant commissioner. When the order is passed by the quasi Judicial Authority in exercise of the power under Section 83, there may not be any need to specifically mention the provision of law and non-mention of the section may not be fatal and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the earlier order is in accordance with Section 83 (4) and, therefore, the subsequent erratum and the impugned order may not give rise to any right to the petitioner to question the same as the petitioner is an encroacher and he is liable to be evicted. 11. " I am of the view that the subsequent erratum and the impugned order are unnecessary and the respondents are entitled to evict the petitioner under the original order dated 10-12-2001 made in oa No. 10/2001. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the judgments cited by the respective Counsel need not be considered. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction of certiorari to grant relief to the petitioner and the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction of certiorari to grant relief to the petitioner and the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. The petitioner is permitted to vacate within 15 days.