Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is two fold-firstly, he prays for cancellation of promotion of respondent no. 7, who was promoted with effect from 20th June, 1999, and secondly to consider his case for promotion in the light of advertisement dated 7.7.1999. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 7 was given preference over the petitioner and promoted him with effect from 20th June, 1999 and his case was ignored. It is further submitted that the petitioner was eligible for promotion according to the Old Rules as per advertisement dated 7.7.1999," and, therefore, the authorities concerned were duty bound to consider his case for promotion. 4. So far the first prayer of the petitioner, whereby and whereunder a prayer has been made to cancel the promotion of respondent no. 7, is concerned, it appears that respondent no. 7 was promoted with effect from 20th June, 1991, and now it will be too late for this Court to express any opinion on the question of promotion of respondent no. 7 on the well known maxim of law that delay defeats equity. This prayer of the petitioner is, therefore, rejected. 5. So far the question to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in light of the advertisement dated 7.7.1999 is concerned, the petitioner may represent his case afresh and in case it is so done, the authorities will consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. 6. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.