JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The Petitioners, who are presently serving as Assistant Directors in Food and Civil Supplies Department, have filed the present writ petition praying for setting aside the recommendation dated 25.01.1999 issued by Mizoram Public Service Commission, notification dated 10.2.1999 issued by the Commissioner to the Government of Mizoram Food and Civil Supplies Department promoting the Respondent No, 6 to the post of Sub-divisional Food and Civil Supply Officer, the final seniority list of Assistant Director/Sub-divisional Food and Civil Supply Officer dated 29.6.1999 and the communication dated 5.5.03 issued by Deputy Secretary Mizoram Public Service Commission to the under Secretary Government of Mizoram, Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms, rejecting the proposal submitted by the Department to review the matter and also claiming retrospective promotion to the post of Asstt. Director/Sub-divisional Food and Civil Supply Officer from the date of promotion of Respondent No. 6 and fixation of their seniority over the Respondent No. 6. 2. The fact in brief is that on 31.1.98 and 31.3.98 two posts of the Asstt. Director/Sub-Divisional Food and Civil Supply Officers fell vacant. The Government in terms of the provision of Mizoram Food and Civil Supplies Department (Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules) forwarded names of 7 Inspectors of Food and Civil Supplies including the present Petitioners and Respondent No. 6 to the Public Service Commission for the purpose of selection to the said posts. The said posts are selection post and to be selected by the Public Service Commission. Though at the relevant point of time a Departmental proceeding was pending against the writ Petitioner No. 1, the Public Service Commission without following the sealed cover procedure has considered the cases of all such Inspectors, including the Petitioner No. 1, for promotion to the promotional post of Asstt. Director/Sub-divisional Food and Civil Supply Officer and recommended the names of the Respondent No. 6 and one Rochungnunga for the purpose of promotion vide communication dated 25.1.1999. Accordingly orders of promotion was issued on 10.2.1999 promoting the said two persons, which includes the Respondent No. 6. Thereafter final seniority list of the Asstt. Director/Sub-divisional Food and Civil Supply Officer and recommended the names of the Respondent No. 6 and one Rochungnunga for the purpose of promotion vide communication dated 25.1.1999. Accordingly orders of promotion was issued on 10.2.1999 promoting the said two persons, which includes the Respondent No. 6. Thereafter final seniority list of the Asstt. Director/Sub-divisional Food and Civil Supplies Officer were published by the Department on 29.6.1999 placing the Respondent No. 6 at serial No. 10 and in the said list the names of the Petitioners did not find place as they were not promoted to the said rank till then. The Petitioners were promoted to the said post of Asstt. Director/Sub-divisional Food and Civil Supplies Officer vide order dated 12.9.2002 on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. The Petitioner along with another on 9.2.1999 filed a representation before the Director Food and Civil Supplies questioning the recommendation of the Public Service Commission Dated 25.1.1999 and the same was forwarded by the Director to the Secretary vide Communication dated 24.2.1999 and ultimately to the Public Service Commission vide Communication dated 19.3.1999. The Petitioner No. 1 after lapse of more than three years from the date his earlier representation, submitted another representation date his earlier representation submitted another representation dated 12.11.2002, after his promotion to the rank of Asstt. Director, again questioning the order of promotion of the Respondent No. 6 dated 10.2.1999 on the ground that his case for promotion was not considered by the D.P.C. and the sealed cover procedure was not adopted as the departmental proceeding was pending against him at the relevant-point of time and also claiming seniority to the post of Asstt. Director over the Respondent No. 6. Similar representation was filed by the other Petitioner along with another on 27.11.2002 questioning the recommendation dated 25.1.1999 and the promotion of the Respondent and others dated 10.2.1999. The Under Secretary Government of Mizoram, Food and Civil Supplies Department, thereafter on 31.1.2003, after lapse of almost four years from the date of promotion of the Respondent No. 6 submitted a note to the Under Secretary DP and AR (G.S.W.) who vide Communication dated 5.2.03 forwarded the said note to the Public Commission. In the said note it was mentioned that the M.P.S.C. has failed to follow the procedure prescribed by the Government of Mizoram vide office memorandum dated 3.9.1998 while making the selection and recommendation on 25.1.1999. In the said note it was mentioned that the M.P.S.C. has failed to follow the procedure prescribed by the Government of Mizoram vide office memorandum dated 3.9.1998 while making the selection and recommendation on 25.1.1999. The M.P.S.C. vide communication dated 5.5.03 rejected the proposal submitted by the department requesting review of the recommendation for the promotion dated 25.1.1999 and hence the present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. S. Pradhan learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, M.P.S.C., Mr. N. Sailo learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and Mr. M. Zothankhuma learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 6. 4. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Government of Mizoram has issued the office memorandum dated 3.9.1998 lying down the procedure to be followed by the Departmental promotion Committee (D.P.C.) while considering the cases of the officers for promotion to the next higher rank and also giving the guide lines as to how the objective assessment of suitability is to be judged by the D.P.C. According to the learned Counsel the said guidelines having coming into force with immediate effect, the DPC is required to follow the same in respect of the selection made by it after 3.9.1998. Mr. Lalramzauva relying on the guide line 3.5 (ii) has submitted that since the post of Asstt. Director/Sub-divisional Food and Civil Supplies Officer is in the level of Rs.2200-4000 and as, for the purpose of promotion from the post of Inspector to the said post of Asstt. Director the required qualifying length of service is ten years, the DPC is required to take into consideration the ACRs of ten years and only, if out of the said ten years a junior Officer is graded by the DPC, as very good in eight years including the last one, then only he can supersede his senior Officer in the matter of promotion, otherwise the seniority will prevail. According to the learned Counsel, it is evident from the minutes of the selection committee, annexed by the Public Service Commission in their affidavit, that out of the ten years ACRs, the Respondents No. 6 was graded as very good in seven years including the last one and therefore, though the overall grading was given as very good by the M.P.S.C., the Petitioners can not be allowed to be superceded by the Respondent No. 6, as he was graded very good in respect of seven years only, by virtue of guideline 3.5 (ii) and hence the selection of the Respondent No. 6 over the Petitioners are bad in law as the Petitioners are admittedly senior in the rank of Inspector and they were graded as good by the M.P.S.C., which was the bench marks fixed as per the guidelines. According to the learned Counsel though the Petitioners were subsequently been promoted to the rank of Asstt. Director vide order dated 12.9.2002, the necessary directions may be issued to hold the review DPC, as M.P.S.C., while selecting the Respondent No. 6 has not followed the guideline dated 3.9.1999 and also to direct Respondents to fix the seniority of Petitioners over the Respondent No. 6. Referring to the question of delay, raised by the Respondent in their affidavit, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that as their fundamental rights has been violated, delay shall not be a ground in refusing the relief to which the Petitioners are entitle to. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in K. Thimmappa and Ors. v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank of India and Ors. reported in 2001(2) SCC 259 and the decisions of this Court in M/s. Apollo Machinery Mart and Ors. v. State of Assam and 20 Ors.; reported in 1997 (2) GLT 213 and Md. Momin Ali v. Commissioner, Gauhati Municipal Corporation and Ors. reported in 1997 (2) GLT 301. 5. Mr. S. Pradhan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the M.P.S.C., has submitted that the office memorandum dated 3.9.98 is not applicable in the instant case as the vacancies for which the selection was conducted by the M.P.S.C. in the year 1999 occurred on 31.1.98 and 31.3.98, as the said office memorandum came into force only on 3.9.98. 5. Mr. S. Pradhan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the M.P.S.C., has submitted that the office memorandum dated 3.9.98 is not applicable in the instant case as the vacancies for which the selection was conducted by the M.P.S.C. in the year 1999 occurred on 31.1.98 and 31.3.98, as the said office memorandum came into force only on 3.9.98. According to the learned Counsel, the office memorandum dated 17.7.96 lying to the procedure to be observed by the DPC is applicable in the instant case as during the continuation of said office memorandum the vacancies in the rank of Asstt. Director, which were filled by vide order of promotion dated 10.2.99, occurred. Mr. Pradhan learned Counsel has submitted that the MPSC is required to give its own grading by taking into account the ACRs of the relevant year, as the post is selection post and the MPSC is to select the person suitable for promotion to the post Asstt. Director. The MPSC has followed the guideline No. 3.5 (ii) of the office memorandum dated 17.7.96 were the bench marks has been fixed as 'very good' for the purpose of promotion of group B, Group A post and Respondents No. 6 having been graded as 'very good' and the Petitioners as 'good', Respondents No. 6 was selected for the purpose of promotion, though he is junior to the Petitioners. According to the learned Counsel, in the selection post the Petitioners cannot claim promotion on the basis of seniority as the MPSC is to select the suitable candidates on the basis of relevant ACRs and also the suitability. Mr. Pradhan has submitted that the selection made by the MPSC is not to be interfered with lightly and can be interfered in the only such selection is made arbitrarily or malafide. There being no allegation of arbitrary action or malafide exercise of power, the writ petition challenging the selection made by the MPSC is not maintainable. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, as the Petitioner by filing the writ in the year 2003 has sought to challenge the recommendation of the MPSC dated 25.1.99 and the consequential promotion of Respondent No. 6 and also the seniority position. Mr. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, as the Petitioner by filing the writ in the year 2003 has sought to challenge the recommendation of the MPSC dated 25.1.99 and the consequential promotion of Respondent No. 6 and also the seniority position. Mr. Pradhan in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.V. Rangaiah and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors. reported in 1983 (3) SCC 284 and State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and Ors. reported in 1997 (10) SCC 419 . 6. Mr. N. Sailo, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 to 5, has submitted that the Respondent No. 6 was promoted to the rank of Asstt. Director vide order dated 10.2.99 in terms of the recommendation of the MPSC dated 25.1.99 and therefore, the promotion of the Respondent No. 6 may not be interfered with by this Court at the instance of such belated petition filed by the Petitioner. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that MPSC has to make an independent assessment of the ACRs of the candidates who come within the zone of consideration and has to judge the suitability of the candidate for the purpose of promotion to the said group A post of Asstt. Director, as the said post is a selection post. The writ court cannot go into the assessment made by the MPSC in selecting the Respondents No. 6 unless such action is arbitrary or malafide. According to the learned Counsel since the writ Petitioner has not alleged any arbitrariness or malafide in the selection, the writ court may not interfere with selection made by MPSC and that too after lapse of four years. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Bajwa and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in 1998 (2) SCC 523 . 7. Mr. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Bajwa and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in 1998 (2) SCC 523 . 7. Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 6 supporting the arguments put forwarded by the learned Counsel by the Respondents No. 1 and Respondents No. 2 to 5, has also submitted that office memorandum dated 17.7.96 is applicable in the instant case, which was followed by the MPSC, as the vacancies which were filled up, occurred prior to the instance of office memorandum dated 3.9.98. According to the learned Counsel as the Respondent No. 6 was graded as 'very good' and the Petitioners were graded was 'good', the Respondent No. 6 was rightly recommended for promotion by the MPSC, though he was junior to the Petitioners in the rank of inspector. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that the present joint writ petition on behalf of the Petitioners is not maintainable as the Petitioners have challenged the appointment of the Respondents No. 6 only and each of them are claiming promotion against the said post hold by the Respondents No. 6 and therefore, there are clashes of interest amongst the Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 6 has further submitted that though the Petitioners prior to the issuance of order of promotion of the Respondents No. 6 dated 10.2.99 has filed a representation challenging his selection, the Petitioners kept silent for more than three years thereafter and only after they were promoted to the rank of Asstt. Director vide order dated 12.9.02, they raised the question again by filing representations dated 12.11.02 and 27.11.02 and thereafter filed the writ petition on 5.6.2003 and as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The writ Petitioners having slept over their right, if any are not entitle to any equitable relief from this Court as the delay defeats equity. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that the Petitioner cannot challenge the seniority list published on 29.6.99, claiming seniority over the Respondents No. 6, as on 29.6.99, when the final seniority list was published, the Petitioners were not born in the cadre of Asstt. The further submission of the learned Counsel is that the Petitioner cannot challenge the seniority list published on 29.6.99, claiming seniority over the Respondents No. 6, as on 29.6.99, when the final seniority list was published, the Petitioners were not born in the cadre of Asstt. Director, they having been promoted to the said rank only on 12.9.02 and therefore, the Petitioners claim of seniority over the Respondent No. 6 cannot be entertained. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings including the annexure appended thereto. 9. It is an admitted position of fact that two vacancies in the rank of Asstt. Director having the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- was occurred on 31.1.98 and on 31.3.98. Under 1991 Rules the post of Asstt. Director/Sub-divisional Food and Civil Supplies Officer is a group A selection post, selection to which is required to be made by the MPSC. The Inspector of food and civil supplies with not less then ten years of regular service is eligible for the purpose of consideration for promotion to the rank of Asstt. Director. The Government of Mizoram issued the office memorandum dated 17.7.96 lying down the procedure to be observed by the DPC. According to the said procedure, the DPCs should decides its own method and procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of the candidates. The said guidelines also provide that the DPC should not be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the confidential reports, but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the confidential reports. The Govt. of Mizoram thereafter on 3.9.98 issued another office memorandum lying the public procedure to be observed by the DPC. In the said office memorandum also it has been stipulated that the DPC should decide its own method and procedure for objecting assessment of suitability of the candidates who come within the zone of consideration. The Govt. of Mizoram thereafter on 3.9.98 issued another office memorandum lying the public procedure to be observed by the DPC. In the said office memorandum also it has been stipulated that the DPC should decide its own method and procedure for objecting assessment of suitability of the candidates who come within the zone of consideration. As per the said deadline the confidential reports are the basic inputs, on the basis of which assessment is to be made by the DPC and the DPC should assess the suitability of the officers for promotion on the basis of the service reports and should not be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the confidential reports but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the confidential reports. 10. It is therefore, evident from the said office memorandums dated 17.7.1996 and 3.9.98 that the MPSC is required to make the objective assessment of the suitability of the candidates for promotion to the selection post, on the basis of the ACRs, but is not bound by the grading given in the said ACRs by the department and has to give its own grading on the basis of the ACRs of the officers concern. In the instant case there is no dispute that both the Petitioners and Respondent No. 6 came within the zone of consideration. The Petitioners have also not disputed the overall grading of 'very good' given by the MPSC to the Respondent No. 6 and also has not challenged the overall grading of 'good' given to them by the MPSC. The Petitioners have challenged the selection on the ground that the MPSC while making selection has not followed the office memorandum dated 3.9.98 and has followed the office memorandum dated 17.7.96. According to the Petitioners, since the selection was after issuance of the office memorandum dated 3.9.98 MPSC is to follow the said office memorandum, irrespective of whether the vacancies arose prior to issuance of the said office memorandum or not. 11. The office memorandum dated 17.7.96 was issued by the government lying down the procedure to be followed in making selection by the DPC. The said office memorandum was in force till the issuance of another office memorandum dated 3.2.98, which was superceded vide office memorandum dated 3.9.98. 11. The office memorandum dated 17.7.96 was issued by the government lying down the procedure to be followed in making selection by the DPC. The said office memorandum was in force till the issuance of another office memorandum dated 3.2.98, which was superceded vide office memorandum dated 3.9.98. Clause 3.5 (ii) of the office memorandum dated 17.7.96, reads as follows: ii. In respect all group 'A' posts, the bench mark grade should be 'very good'. Similarly, for promotion from group 'B' post to group 'A' post the bench mark grade will be 'very good'. However, officers who are graded as 'outstanding' would rank enbloc senior to the those who are graded as very good and placed in the select panel accordingly. Up to the number of vacancies, officers with some grading marinating their inter se seniority in the feeder post. 12. The said guideline stipulates that for the purpose of promotion to the group 'A' post the benchmark grade should be 'very good' and officers who are graded as 'outstanding' would rank enbloc senior to those who are graded as 'very good'. 13. Clause 3.5 (ii) of office memorandum dated 3.9.98 provides as under: 3.5 (ii) In respect of all posts which are in the level of Rs.3700-5000/- and above, the bench-mark should be 'VERY GOOD' and for all the post which are in the level of Rs.2200-4000/- and above but less than Rs.3700-5000/- the bench mark should be 'Good'. However, officers who are graded as outstanding would rank enbloc senior to those who are graded as 'VERY GOOD' and placed in the select panel accordingly up to the number of vacancies, officers with some grading maintaining their inter se seniority in the Feeder post. Further, super session of the officer with lower grading by those with higher grading shall be permitted in the following manner only. Further, super session of the officer with lower grading by those with higher grading shall be permitted in the following manner only. To supersede those graded 'VERY GOOD' officer graded 'OUTSTANDING' should have at least 4 (four) of his ACRs graded as 'OUTSTANDING' including the last ACRs when the minimum length of service required at the feeder grade for promotion is 5 (five) years, 5 (five) including the last one when the required length of service for promotion at the feeder grade is 7 (seven) years and 6 (six) including the last one when the minimum length of the service required at the Feeder grade for promotion is 8 (eight) and 8 (eight) including the last one when required length of service is the feeder grade is 10 (ten) years. The same yardstick will apply for suppression of the officers graded 'GOOD' by the officer graded 'very Good'. 14. According to the said guidelines dated 3.9.98, the bench mark for the purpose of promotion in the level of Rs.2200-4000/- should be 'Good' and in case an officer junior in the feeder post gets eight 'very good' including last one (since ten year qualifying service is required for promotion to the post of Asstt. Director as per 1991 rules) he will march over the person who is senior in the feeder post, otherwise the seniority will prevail. 15. In the instant case the question to be decided is whether the office memorandum dated 17.7.96 or office memorandum dated 3.9.98 is applicable, keeping in view the date when the vacancies arose as well as the date of selection. The Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiah (Supra) has held that vacancy in the promotional post occurring prior to the amendment of relevant service rules have to be filled up in accordance with the provisions of the unamended rules. The similar view has also been taken by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal (supra). In the instant case the vacancies which were filled up on the basis of the recommendation dated 25.1.1999, occurred on 31.1.98 and 31.3.98. The authority having decided to filled up the said post is required to make necessary selection through the MPSC in terms of the provision of the 1991 rules. The authority has in fact initiated the process for selection prior to coming into force of the office memorandum dated 3.9.98. The authority having decided to filled up the said post is required to make necessary selection through the MPSC in terms of the provision of the 1991 rules. The authority has in fact initiated the process for selection prior to coming into force of the office memorandum dated 3.9.98. That being the position the office memorandum dated 3.9.98 can not be made applicable for the purpose of selection to the post of Asstt. Director, vacancies of which occurred on 31.1.98 and 31.3.98 i.e. prior to the issuance of the office memorandum dated 3.9.98. The MPSC has therefore, rightly followed the office memorandum issued by the government on 17.7.96 which prevailed on the date when vacancies occurred. 16. As per the memorandum dated 17.7.96, the DPC is required to decide its own procedure and method of assessment of the suitability of the candidates and is to assess the suitability on the basis of the service records, by giving its own grading on the basis of the ACRs. The bench mark for promotion to the group 'A' post being 'VERY GOOD' as stipulated in Clause 3.5 (ii), the Respondents No. 6, who was graded as 'very good' was rightly recommended for promotion by the MPSC, though he is junior to the writ Petitioners, who were graded as 'good' by the MPSC. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the MPSC in recommending name of Respondents No. 6 for the purpose of promotion. 17. Moreover in the selection post like the post of Asstt. Director/Sub-divisional Food and Civil Supplies Officer, the MPSC is to make independent assessment of the suitability of the candidates on the basis of the service records. The grading given by the department in the ACRs is not the deciding factor. The MPSC has to give its own grading on the basis of the ACRs of the concern officers for the relevant years. The grading given by the MPSC is not open to the judicial review by a writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as writ Court can not sit on appeal over the decision of the MPSC, which is a Constitutional authority, unless such decisions are arbitrary or malafide or in violation of the relevant Service Rules. The writ Petitioners have not challenged the selection of the Respondent No. 6 on the ground of arbitrariness or malafide or violation of Rules. That being the position selection by MPSC is not open to judicial review by a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. In Md. Momin Ali (Supra) a single bench of this Court has held that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a methodology by which the High Court controls the exercise of the power of the executive. The object is to oversee that the administrative authority exercising its statutory power exercise their power in a lawful manner and the judicial review is designed that the public bodies while exercising its power acts lawfully. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned with the legality of the decision making process and not with the merits of the particular decision. There is no dispute to the said legal proposition. In the instant case, as already held the MPSC has not violated the office memorandum issued by the government and said authority has not committed any illegality in the decision making process, requiring interference by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Let me now take up the point of delay raised by the Respondents in filing the present writ petition. The Petitioners along with Respondents No. 6 and others, in all seven officers, who came within the zone of consideration were considered for promotion by the MPSC in the month of January 1999 against the posts which fell vacant on 31.1.1998 and 31.3.98. The MPSC upon selection has recommended the name of the Respondents No. 6 and another for promotion against those posts vide communication dated 25.1.1999. The Petitioner though, after the said recommendation, submitted representation dated 9.2.1999 challenging the recommendation of the Respondents No. 6 for promotion, they did nothing thereafter for more than three and half years and only after the Petitioners were promoted to the rank of Asstt. Director vide order dated 12.9.2002, they filed two other representations on 12.11.2002 and 27.11.2002. Thereafter also the Petitioners did not approach this Court immediately and after lapse about six months they filed writ petition on 5.6.03. Director vide order dated 12.9.2002, they filed two other representations on 12.11.2002 and 27.11.2002. Thereafter also the Petitioners did not approach this Court immediately and after lapse about six months they filed writ petition on 5.6.03. The Petitioners for the period from 9.2.1999 to 12.11.2002 have slept over their right, if any, and thereby allowing the Respondent No. 6 to continue in the promotional post without raising any objection. The Petitioners, are stated above, have raised that objection again, regarding the selection of Respondent No. 6, after their promotion on 12.9.2002 with view to get the seniority over the Respondent No. 6. The writ court being the court of equity will definitely refuse to grant relief, even if the Petitioners are entitled to the same, on the ground of delay, as delay defeats equity. 20. In K. Thimmappa (Supra), the Apex Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be rejected solely on the ground of laches, when the question of violation of the fundamental right is involved in it. In the instant case the Petitioners were considered for promotion along with Respondents No. 6 and other by the MPSC and they were found not suitable for promotion as they were graded as 'good' and the Respondents No. 6 was recommended for promotion as he was graded as 'very good'. The right to be considered the officers for promotion, who comes within the zone of consideration is a fundamental right, which is not been violated by the Respondents in the instant case, as the Petitioners were considered for promotion. Therefore the question of delay in filing the writ petition can not be ignored in the instant case, as the Petitioners did not approach this Court expeditiously for relief and they allowed to things to happen and then approach this Court to put forwarded their claims and try to unsettle the settle position by challenging the recommendation of the MPSC dated 25.1.1999 and promotion of Respondent No. 6 dated 10.2.1999 by filing a writ petition on 5.6.2003. 21. 21. In M/s. Apollo Machinery Mart (Supra) a division bench of this Court while dealing with an order passed under Section 336 of Code of Criminal Procedure has held that there is no statutory time limit prescribed for filing of a writ petition, although ordinarily the provisions of the limitation act provides guidance but no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that behalf. In the said case as writ petition was dismissed after more than five years of filing same on the ground of inordinate delay and latches, it was held that the dismissal of the writ petition on that ground was not sustainable more so when such plea was not raised at the motion or admission stage. In the instant case the matter relates to the promotion and the seniority of the Respondents No. 6 in the higher grade and writ petition is not pending for a long period before this Court. Hence the decision in M/s. Appolo Machinery Mart is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 22. The Apex Court in B.S. Bajwa and Anr. (Supra) while dealing with a matter relating to the seniority in service has held that the question of seniority should not be reopened after a lapse of reasonable period as that would result in disturbing the settled position, which is not justifiable. 23. In Dhiren Dutta v. NEEPCO and Ors. reported in 2001(3) GLT 134, a single bench of this Court by taking into consideration the fact that the recommendation of the DPCs which met in the year 1994 and 1996 were challenged in the year 1999, has held that as the writ petition was filed belatedly challenging such recommendations, no relief cannot be granted as it would not be a sound exercise of discretion by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the recommendation of the DPC on the basis of such belated writ petition. In the instant case also as observed above, the recommendation of the MPSC was though initially objected by the Petitioner No. 1 by filing a representation dated 9.2.1999, the Petitioner kept silent for more than three years and only after their promotion on 12.9.2002 they raised the question of legality and validity of the recommendation, by filing representations in the month of November 2002 only, with a view to get seniority over the Respondent No. 6, though he was promoted on 10.2.1999, and ultimately filed the writ petition on 5.6.03 thereby causing inordinate delay in challenging the such recommendations and promotion of Respondent No. 6. Therefore, it would not be a sound exercise of discretion by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the recommendation and promotion of the Respondent No. 6 on the basis of such belated writ petition. Hence writ Petitioner is not also entitle to any relief on such writ petition. 24. In view of the above I do not find any merit in the writ petition and hence the same is dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.