JUDGMENT : 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief : (i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector from the date on which his junior Shri Babu Lal Bairwa was given promotion i.e. w.e.f. 16-9-1988 with all consequential benefits; (ii) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner; (iii) The cost of this petition may also be awarded to be given to the humble petitioner." 2. The necessary facts, for the disposal of the writ petition, in nub, are thus : 3. That pursuant to appointment order dated 18th November, 1975, the petitioner Hanuman Prasad joined his duties on the post of Conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation on 22nd November, 1975. Since then he has been continuously working without any break. It is averred that the respondent - Corporation prepared a seniority list of all the conductors of Rajasthan and issued the same on 21st August, 1981, wherein the petitioner stood at Sr. No. 1893 and one Babu Lal Bairwa, who was junior to him, stood at Sr. No. 1954. After issuing the seniority list, the respondent - Corporation gave promotion to as many as 87 conductors i.e. "Patrak vitrak" on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector vide office order dated 16th September, 1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that Babu Lal Bairwa was junior to him and stood in seniority at Sr. No. 1954, he was given promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector and the petitioner, who was senior to him and stood at Sr. No. 1893 was denied promotion. The petitioner submitted many representations to the respondent - Corporation, but all the representations remained unheeded and went in vain. No. 1954, he was given promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector and the petitioner, who was senior to him and stood at Sr. No. 1893 was denied promotion. The petitioner submitted many representations to the respondent - Corporation, but all the representations remained unheeded and went in vain. The petitioner has further submitted that there has been an absolute and unreasonable discrimination with him and there is no other alternate efficacious speedy remedy available to him, therefore, his writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to give him promotion on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector with effect from 16th September, 1988, when his junior Babu Lal Bairwa was given promotion on the said post. 4. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents, at the very outset, have raised preliminary objections to the effect that according to the settled position of law, no positive direction can be issued by any court to promote a person. Merely a direction can be given to consider the candidature of an employee seeking promotion on a particular post. Secondly, Shri Babu Lal Bairwa, who has been cited junior to the petitioner, has not been impleaded a party in the writ petition. The respondents have assailed the writ petition primarily on this ground that it has been filed in the year 1996, after undue delay of eight years as the petitioner has claimed his promotion on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector with effect from 16th September, 1988. The respondents have further pleaded that the petitioner was of-course appointed vide order dated 18/19th November, 1975 on the post of Conductor on probation, but his services were terminated vide order dated 6th May, 1976 as he was found guilty in a departmental enquiry for carrying 19 passengers without ticket, in appeal, his penalty of removal was diluted in the penalty of censure and the salary of suspension period was forfeited. The petitioner was reinstated. Thereafter again the petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated 23rd January, 1982. However, the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, but his services were not found satisfactory. He was not found fit for promotion as the following disciplinary matters were pending against him : (1) Departmental Enquiry in pursuance of charge-sheet No. 1731 dated 27-11-1979 issued by the Regional Manager, Kota. However, the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, but his services were not found satisfactory. He was not found fit for promotion as the following disciplinary matters were pending against him : (1) Departmental Enquiry in pursuance of charge-sheet No. 1731 dated 27-11-1979 issued by the Regional Manager, Kota. (2) Departmental Enquiry in pursuance of charge-sheet No. 2114 dated 7-1-1981 issued by the Regional Manager. (3) Departmental Enquiry in pursuance of charge-sheet dated 10-1-1987 issued by the Regional Manager, Kota. (4) Departmental Enquiry in pursuance of charge-sheet No. 1828 dated 17-10-1978 issued by the Regional Manager, Kota. (5) Departmental Enquiry in pursuance of charge-sheet No. 1726 dated 26-9-1978, 5. In view of the pendency of the aforesaid departmental enquiries, the name of the petitioner was kept in a sealed cover. The petitioner never challenged this decision of the respondents, hence the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Reiterating the grounds, as enumerated in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the petitioner through-out was having a clean record. There being no fault on the part of the "petitioner, the respondents terminated his services, as a result of which he filed a declaratory suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, The learned Additional Civil Judge vide judgment dated 14th October, 1986 decreed the declaratory suit declaring the termination order dated 23rd January, 1982 of the petitioner to be illegal void ab initio and against the principles of natural justice. His services were held to be in continuity. The learned counsel has further contended that the list of departmental enquiries incorporated in the reply by the respondents is illusive and has no basis to be believed. The learned counsel has further contended that his junior Babu Lal Bairwa stood at Sr. No. 1954 in order of seniority, was given promotion, whereas the petitioner, who was senior to him and stood at Sr. No. 1893 was denied promotion. The act of the respondents is totally arbitrary and discriminatory, hence the writ petition be allowed. 8. The learned counsel has further contended that his junior Babu Lal Bairwa stood at Sr. No. 1954 in order of seniority, was given promotion, whereas the petitioner, who was senior to him and stood at Sr. No. 1893 was denied promotion. The act of the respondents is totally arbitrary and discriminatory, hence the writ petition be allowed. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the name of the petitioner was considered by the Selection Committee and the case of the petitioner was kept in a sealed cover owing to the pendency of five departmental enquiries against him. The petitioner was terminated twice from the service as he was found guilty in a departmental enquiry for carrying passengers without ticket. The petitioner has never challenged the promotion list dated 16th September, 1988 and after inordinate delay of 8 years he has claimed his promotion on the ground that since his junior has been given promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, he also may be given promotion on the said post. The case of the petitioner is devoid of merits and, thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the promotion list dated 16th September, 1988 was never challenged by the petitioner. He has straight way filed a writ petition of mandamus praying that he should be given promotion on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector from the date, on which his junior Babu Lal Bairwa was given promotion. It is found from the perusal of the record that the candidature of the petitioner was considered at the time of promotion and a decision was taken by the Selection committee to keep the name of the petitioner in a sealed cover on account of the reason that he was facing departmental enquiries in the aforesaid five disciplinary cases. The petitioner has not disclosed any reason as to why did he not challenge the promotion order dated 16th September, 1988 when he was denied promotion by the selection committee. Now after an inordinate delay of 8 years, he has filed the instant writ petition to seek promotion. 10. The petitioner has not disclosed any reason as to why did he not challenge the promotion order dated 16th September, 1988 when he was denied promotion by the selection committee. Now after an inordinate delay of 8 years, he has filed the instant writ petition to seek promotion. 10. In the case of B.S. Bajwa and another v. State of Punjab and others reported in (1998) 2 SCC 523 : 1999 Lab IC 229 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus : "7. Having heard both sides we are satisfied that the writ petition was wrongly entertained and allowed by the single Judge and, therefore, the judgments of the single Judge and the Division Bench have both to be set aside. The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches because the grievance was made by B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the other aforesaid persons and the rights inter se had crystallised which ought not to have been reopened after the lapse of such a long period. At every stage others were promoted before B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta and this position was known to B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta right from the beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition." 11. Now adverting to the facts of the writ petition on hand, the case of the petitioner is found to be the worst than that of any one could have been. At the time of considering the name of petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, five departmental enquiries were found to have been pending against him, so the decision was kept in a sealed cover by the selection committee. The promotion order dated 16th September, 1988 was never challenged by the petitioner in the court. At the time of considering the name of petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, five departmental enquiries were found to have been pending against him, so the decision was kept in a sealed cover by the selection committee. The promotion order dated 16th September, 1988 was never challenged by the petitioner in the court. Respondents vide Additional Affidavit dated 20-10-2005 have informed that the petitioner has been punished in seven departmental enquiries and the decision of review DPC dated 21-2-1997, which was kept under sealed cover, is still in the sealed cover. Thus, the petitioner has no case in his favour. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not found to be tenable. 12. In view of above legal position and fore-going reasons, the case of the petitioner is found to be devoid of merits and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. For the reasons stated above, the petition stands dismissed accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******