JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for the respondents when the matter was called on for hearing. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.2.1999 dismissing the writ petition field by the appellant-petitioner in limine. 3. The petitioner-appellant has filed the writ petition on 25.2.1999 and prayed for reliefs that the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment by way of promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk from the date promotion was given to one Shri Shiv Dutt Sharma i.e. 26.5.1969. Ancillary, he also prayed that the orders passed by the Settlement Committee and Appellate Committee which have considered his representations and decided against him may also be quashed. 4. Shorn of all technicalities, according to the petitioner's assertion in the writ petition that the said Shiv Dutt Sharma, who was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition, became eligible for promotion to the post of U.D.C. on 27.8.1970. When he competed three years of his services after qualifying as a Graduate in 1967; whereas the petitioner became eligible prior to Shiv Dutt on 24.7.1970 on completion of 7 years of services as L.D.C. being non-graduate. 5. The core premise for the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant was that since the petitioner has entered the services earlier than Shri Shiv Dutt Sharma and he became eligible for promotion to the next higher post of U.D.C. prior to Shiv Dutt Sharma. The petitioner ought to have been promoted earlier than Shiv Dutt Sharma being to him. For this purpose that Shiv Dutt Sharma became eligible after three years of obtaining graduate while in service and not on computing three years experience as such, as soon as he completed graduation while in service, was founded on a circular issued by the respondents on 4.11.1972 replying to certain quarries raised: whether for becoming eligible for appointment to the post of U.D.C. for a graduate, three years service should be reckoned after graduation or from the date of appointment, irrespective of the date of graduation 6. As the petition has been dismissed in limine by considering that no definite facts have been given about petitioner becoming eligible earlier than incumbent Shiv Dutt Sharma and that said Shiv Dutt Sharma has not been Impleaded as a party, no reply has been filed by the respondents before the learned Single Judge. However, after appeal was admitted, the respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition in this appeal. 7. From the reply, it is apparent that said Shiv Dutt Sharma became eligible for promotion to the post of U.D.C. on the anvil of Government circular dated 4.11.1972, prior to petitioner on 8.6.1970 as the result of B.A. (Final) was declared by Jai Narain Vyas University on 8.6.1967 and that the seniority on the basis of substantive appointment was given to said Shiv Dutt Sharma w.e.f. 9.6.1970 only. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion the basic premise on which the petitioner claimed to have an indefeasible right to have been considered for promotion to the post of U.D.C. prior to Shiv Dutt Sharma does not survive. Said Shiv Dutt Sharma having become eligible prior to petitioner could have been considered and appointed by promotion to the post of U.D.C. prior to petitioner. Said Shiv Dutt Sharma having been appointed temporarily by way of promotion on 26.5.1969 and substantive appointment having been given only from 9.6.1970 when he had became eligible for substantive appointment even according to the petitioner the petitioner cannot claim his promotion to the post of U.D.C. as a matter of right at this stage to be ante dated to the date on which Shiv Dutt Sharma was promoted. 9. The petitioner has been promoted on the post of U.D.C. in the year 1973. It is also to be noticed that promotion of Shiv Dutt Sharma has taking place in 1969 on temporary basis and substantively in 1970. The petitioner has been promoted in 1973, yet grievance by way of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction has been made only in 1999. Merely because during this period he has been ventilating his grievances by way of representations would not make out a case for explaining such a gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has been promoted in 1973, yet grievance by way of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction has been made only in 1999. Merely because during this period he has been ventilating his grievances by way of representations would not make out a case for explaining such a gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. It is also to be noticed that the principal ground which petitioner wants to contend before us for considering that said Shiv Dutt Sharma has become eligible after him, is founded on a document which came into existence long after promotion was granted to Shiv Dutt Sharma. Prior to that, it was in the state of ambiguity; one at the relevant time accepted by the Management for giving appointment to Shiv Dutt Sharma and another which the respondents have clarified in 1972 starting that a graduate LDC became eligible for promotion only after three years of obtaining Graduate Degree. In the facts and circumstances, when such ambiguity persisted, the clarification could have been made applicable only from a future date, not to affect the promotions which have been made earlier by considering the rule to operate otherwise. 10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal for the reasons stated above, though we do not agree with the reasons adopted by the learned Single Judge. 11. According, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******