Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper book. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 20265 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order on the legal notice which had been served by the petitioner on the respondents. The petitioner claims the promotion as Assistant Manager (C) with effect from 01.01.1989 from the date when Sunil Gupta and Sunil Chopra were promoted. It is claimed in the petition that the aforesaid two officers belongs to the same batch as the petitioner. It is also claimed that the services record of these two aforesaid officers is not better than the record of the petitioner. Even then the claim of the petitioner for promotion was rejected. We notice that the petitioner, was, in fact, subsequently promoted as Assistant Manager (C) with effect from 01.07.1990. The petitioner never made any grievance to his promotion w.e.f. 01.07.1990. He started agitating his claim when the writ petition filed by one Rajan Narang in the Delhi High Court (CWP No. 2723 of 1989) was allowed on 16.11.200,0. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the record of the Sunil Gupta and Sunil Chopra was produced by the respondents in the aforesaid writ petition in the Delhi High Court and it was at that stage that the petitioner came to know that he was having better service record than the aforesaid two officers and he has been illegally deprived of his promotion. The petitioner, thereafter served a legal notice on the respondents stating the relevant record of the petitioner in comparison to the record of Sunil Gupta and Sunil Chopra. Since no decision was taken on the legal notice by the respondents, the petitioner filed CWP No. 20265 of 2002. This writ petition was disposed of by his Court on 31.7.2003 with the directions to take a decision on the legal notice by passing a speaking order. After the disposal of the writ petition by this Court, the respondents have passed a speaking order dated 14.11.2003, Annexure P-10. In the order Annexure P-10, it is categorically stated that the petitioner cannot claim parity with Sunil Gupta and Sunil Chopra on account of the fact that the petitioner was considered for promotion alongwith the aforesaid two officers. After the disposal of the writ petition by this Court, the respondents have passed a speaking order dated 14.11.2003, Annexure P-10. In the order Annexure P-10, it is categorically stated that the petitioner cannot claim parity with Sunil Gupta and Sunil Chopra on account of the fact that the petitioner was considered for promotion alongwith the aforesaid two officers. The Departmental Selection Committee found Sunil Gupta and Sunil Chopra suitable for promotion. However, the petitioner was not found suitable. Therefore, the petitioner was not promoted. 3. Faced with this situation, Mr. Puneet Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents had now promoted Rajan Narang on the basis of the judgment of the Delhi High Court which has been upheld by the Supreme Court as the SLP filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court has been dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since Rajan Narang is admittedly, junior to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit. 4. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that the Courts are reluctant to unsettle the settled positions of seniority. It is also settled that a person aggrieved by the supersession must move the Court within a reasonable period of time. The petitioner is claiming promotion from the year 1989. The present petition has been filed after a period of about 15 years. We are of the considered opinion that the present petition is highly belated and cannot be entertained at this stage. This view of ours find support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 2271 wherein it has been held as follows;- "A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioners petition should therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High-Court was right in dismissing the appellants petition as well as the appeal." 5. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition.