JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner preferred this writ petition seeking writ, order or direction to this effect that the petitioner may be declared senior to Shri S.S. Gupta and Shri Vinod Kumar and further seeks direction to promote the petitioner on the post of Area Manager w.e.f. 11.12.1990, the date on which Shri Vinod Kumar and Shri S.S. Gupta have been promoted and also claimed back-wages for the post of Senior Area Manager w.e.f. 11.12.1990. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the seniority list dated 11.4.1990 prepared by the Aiwar Bharatpur Aanchalik Gramin Bank is in contravention of the Regulation 13(3) of Alwar Bharatpur Aanchalik Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred as Regulations of 1982). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drawn my attention towards the seniority list dated 23.11.1995 and tried to demonstrate that in the provisional seniority list dated 23.11.1995, the persons who were shown senior in the seniority list dated 11.4.1990, are shown junior in the seniority to list dated 23.11.1995 and submits that the seniority list drawn on 23.11.1995 is strictly in compliance of the Regulation 13(3) of the Regulation of 1982. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mistake which was committed by the respondents while issuing the seniority list dated 11.4.1990 and later on corrected in the seniority list dated 23.11.1995, should be corrected w.e.f. 1990 and if the seniority list dated 11.4.1990 was correctly drawn in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 13(3) of the Regulation of 1982 then the petitioner would have got the promotion along with the respondents and he be shown senior to the respondents and he may be given promotion from the date upon which the respondents were given promotion with all consequential benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Reasham Bhargava challenged the maintainability of the writ petition as the petitioner had filed the writ petition in the year 1996 after lapse of 6 years from the date of publishing of seniority list on 11.4.1990. At this belated stage, as held by the Supreme Court in case of B.S. Bajwa, this writ petition should not be entertained. 6. Reasham Bhargava challenged the maintainability of the writ petition as the petitioner had filed the writ petition in the year 1996 after lapse of 6 years from the date of publishing of seniority list on 11.4.1990. At this belated stage, as held by the Supreme Court in case of B.S. Bajwa, this writ petition should not be entertained. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents drawn my attention towards the prayer claimed by the petitioner and categorically stated that since the petitioner has not opted to challenge the seniority list dated 11.4.1990 and without challenging the same, the petitioner cannot claim promotion. 7. Mr. Reasham Bhargava in support of his contentions placed reliance on the judgment rendered in case of Rajnish Pareek v. Bhilwara-Ajmer Kshetriya Gramin Bank & others, reported in RLW 1998 (1) Raj. 74 wherein this Court has declared the Regulation 13(3) as ultra vires. 8. In case of Virendra Kumar Shah v. C.P. Chaudhary & others, reported in 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 643 , the Division Bench of this Court declared the main part of Regulation 19 as ultra vires. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred a judgment of Apex Court in case of Dr. (Capt.) Akhouri Ramesh Chandra Sinha & others v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1996 (2) SCC 21 wherein Apex Court has opined that "it is settled law that on completion of the satisfactory probation, his confirmation would date back to the date of his initial appointment." 10. While placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, the respondents tried to establish their case that they have been rightly assigned the seniority above the petitioner as they have been given appointment earlier to the petitioner. 11. So far as validity of Rule 13(3) is concerned, the Division Bench held that clause 3 of the Rule 13 is not suffering from vice of so discrimination or unreasonableness and uphold the Rule as valid. Since the controversy is settled by the Division Bench, it is not necessary to enter in this controversy. 12. It is not disputed that the petitioner was also given promotion on 1 the post of Senior Area Manager, but he is claiming promotion w.e.f. 11.12.1990 as the respondent Shri S.S. Gupta and Shri Vinod Kumar have been promoted on the post of Senior Area Manager. 13. 12. It is not disputed that the petitioner was also given promotion on 1 the post of Senior Area Manager, but he is claiming promotion w.e.f. 11.12.1990 as the respondent Shri S.S. Gupta and Shri Vinod Kumar have been promoted on the post of Senior Area Manager. 13. The petitioner at the relevant point of time did not opt to challenge the seniority list dated 11.4.1990 and filed the writ petition in the year 1996 after lapse of six years, the settled position as on 1990 cannot be unsettled and for that purpose, the petitioner has to redress his case before the respondents. At this belated stage, the petitioner is estopped to challenge the validity of the seniority list dated 11.4.1990 under the pretext of subsequent to seniority list dated 23.11.1995. 14. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the seniority list dated 11.4.1990 and represent before the respondents with regard to assignment of promotion w.e.f. his junior persons have been given promotion on the post of Senior Area Manager. In this writ petition, no relief can be given to the petitioner as the petitioner has failed to challenge the seniority list dated 11.4.1990. 15. With these observations, the writ petition fails and herewith rejected with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******