JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.: Petitioner has filed the preset writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: “(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing and setting aside Annexure P-1 dated 30.10.2010. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent Board to promote the petitioner as Head Clerk w.e.f. 21.1.1980, with further consequential promotions. (iii) Respondent Board may kindly be further directed to place the petitioner above Sh.Raj Pal Singh in Annexure P-18 i.e. placing the petitioner at serial No.123-A with all consequential benefits, like seniority, arrears, etc. etc.” 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent, who filed reply. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as alleged by the petitioner, who is a retiree, are that earlier, the he had filed a petition being CWP(T) No.14133 of 2008 and it was noticed, during the course of hearing of the said petition, that the seniority list prepared by the respondent-Board did not reflect the name of the petitioner at an appropriate place. It was also alleged that this Court noticed in the said writ petition that the seniority lists, both provisional and final, were circulated at the back of the petitioner. Thus, this Court vide its judgment dated 17.8.2010 disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions: “Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Board to permit the petitioner to make a representation against the provisional seniority list. The representation shall be made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks and the same shall be considered and decided by the Secretary of the respondent-Board by a speaking/reasoned order within another period of ten weeks after the receipt of the representation. It is made clear that to balance the equities, other similarly situate incumbents shall also be given opportunity to make representation(s) in this behalf. No costs.” 5. It was further alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the petitioner made representation to the respondent-Board. The respondent-Board, after entertaining the said representation of the petitioner, rejected the same vide order dated 30.10.2010. No costs.” 5. It was further alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the petitioner made representation to the respondent-Board. The respondent-Board, after entertaining the said representation of the petitioner, rejected the same vide order dated 30.10.2010. The petitioner alleged that as per Annexure P-4, the criterion for being appointed as Upper Division Clerk (UDC for short) was appointment/promotion. Besides eligibility conditions, another condition contained in the Regulations of 1972 (Annexure P-4) was as under: “Other conditions: Direct recruits shall have to qualify the Departmental Examinations for Clerks within a period of three years from the date of their appointment failing which they will have to vacate the post of UDC and they shall be offered the lower post of LDC if available otherwise their services will be dispensed with.” Thus, as per regulations contained in Annexure P-4, the petitioner was required to clear the said departmental examination within three years. 5. It was further alleged that the respondent-Board made new Regulations in the year 1975 (Annexure P-5). A change was brought in with respect to passing of the above said departmental examination as under: “Other conditions: Direct recruits shall have to qualify the Deptt. Examinations for Clerks during three examinations to be held after the dates of their appointment failing which they will have to vacate the post of UDC and they shall be offered the lower post of LDC if available otherwise their services will be dispensed with.” Earlier, as per Annexure P-4, the directly recruited UDCs were required to clear the said departmental examination within three years, whereas in the Regulations of 1975 contained in Annexure P-5, the said condition was altered to the effect that the said departmental examination for the Clerks was required to be qualified during three examinations. 6. It was further alleged that the respondent-Board vide notification dated 11.1.1979 abolished the condition of the said departmental examination. The respondent-Board conducted the said departmental examination only twice in the years 1975 and 1976. The petitioner did avail two chances for appearing in the said examination, which he could not clear at the relevant time. The respondent-Board, while promoting the UDCs to the promotional posts of Head Clerks vide office order dated 21.1.1980 wrongly ignored the legitimate claim of the petitioner. The petitioner did avail two chances for appearing in the said examination, which he could not clear at the relevant time. The respondent-Board, while promoting the UDCs to the promotional posts of Head Clerks vide office order dated 21.1.1980 wrongly ignored the legitimate claim of the petitioner. It was alleged that the juniors to the petitioner, namely, Raj pal Singh and Ram Chand were promoted to the posts of Head Clerks, who had not cleared the said departmental examination like the petitioner. In view of the fact that the requirement of departmental examination was done away with, the next criterion of promotion in respect of UDCs to the post of Head Clerks was four years regular service as UDCs. The petitioner joined the respondent-Board as UDC in the category of direct recruits in the year 1973 and he was having legitimate claim to be considered for promotion in the year 1979-80 since he was fulfilling the criterion of four years regular service as UDC. The respondent-Board did not promote the petitioner to the promotional post of Head Clerk, though he was eligible. Again some juniors named in the petition were promoted to the promotional post of Head Clerks ignoring the claim of the petitioner. In the subsequent order dated 24.2.1984, the respondent-Board again ignored the legitimate claim of the petitioner for the promotional post of Head Clerk. The petitioner alleged that in the seniority list of UDCs, as on 30.6.1980, (Annexure P-14), he was placed much higher in the seniority list. The respondent-Board promoted the petitioner to the post of Head Clerk vide office order, dated 14.10.1988, (Annexure P-15). It was further alleged that the respondent-Board committed a serious lapse in rejecting the representation (Annexure P-3) made by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner pleaded that his representation Annexure P3 has not been considered in a proper perspective and that he could not have been ignored since the mandatory requirement of departmental examination was removed and as the same stood abolished vide Annexure P-6, the petitioner alleged that the respondent-Board was not justified to promote one Chet Ram Bhardwaj ahead of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner claimed that since juniors to him were given the benefit of promotion by the respondent-Board since 21.1.1980, there is no justifiable reason for the respondent-Board to have deprived of the petitioner from giving him the promotional benefits from 21.1.1980. 7. Therefore, the petitioner claimed that since juniors to him were given the benefit of promotion by the respondent-Board since 21.1.1980, there is no justifiable reason for the respondent-Board to have deprived of the petitioner from giving him the promotional benefits from 21.1.1980. 7. In the reply filed by the respondent Board, they have admitted that earlier there was a provision for passing of departmental examination by the direct recruits within a period of three years from the date of their appointment, which was amended and the said examination was to be passed by availing three opportunities. The respondent-Board has pleaded that thereafter the Rules were amended in the year 1975 (Annexure RA-II) and in the said Rules there was a provision for further promotion from the post of UDC to the post of Head Clerk as under: “By promotion from amongst the UDCs (who have qualified the departmental examination for Clerks).” It was further pleaded that the condition of departmental examination was scrapped in the year 1979, but some persons had already passed the departmental examination and they were to be considered first for promotion. It has further been pleaded that the Regulations were again amended in the year 1985 and the criterion for further promotion from the post of UDC to the post of Head Clerk was provided as under: “By promotion from amonst the UDCs. (Note:-The UDCs who have qualified the deptt.examination of Clerks, if any, will be considered first for promotion.) 8. It is clear from the above discussion that the condition of passing of departmental examination was scrapped and firstly this was to be passed within a period of three years from the date of appointment and thereafter three opportunities were given for passing the departmental examination. It has been admitted by the respondent-Board that the petitioner could avail only two opportunities for departmental examination and was not given the third opportunity since the Rules for holding departmental examination were scrapped. Therefore, the petitioner’s case could not have been rejected or he could not have been ignored since he had to be given equal opportunities as provided under the Rules and he was given one opportunity less for passing the departmental examination. Therefore, the petitioner’s case could not have been rejected or he could not have been ignored since he had to be given equal opportunities as provided under the Rules and he was given one opportunity less for passing the departmental examination. Thereafter, when the Rules were amended in the year 1975 (Annexure RA-II), a clause was laid down in the Rules that the UDCs who have qualified the departmental examination will be considered first for promotion. The petitioner has not challenged the said Rules as being ultra virus and the Rules, as they existed, have to be read. However, I am of the opinion that even if the said Rules remain in existence, which have not been challenged by the petitioner, these cannot be invoked in the case of the petitioner who has been denied three opportunities which were required to be given for qualifying the departmental examination. Therefore, he was entitled to be given promotion when it was due to him and when the persons junior to him were promoted to the post of Head Clerk. 9. However, the relief in question cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner since these promotions were made in the year 1980 and he has filed the present petition in the year 2010. The cause of action has been taken by the petitioner from the date of rejection of his representation i.e. 30.10.2010 within one year of rejection, but the said representation cannot be said to have given him a fresh cause of action to decide the question that as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be promoted in the year 1980 when persons junior to him were promoted and he was denied the benefit. The petitioner should have filed the petition within at least three years of the promotions having been made, when his case was ignored, but he filed the writ petition and the representation for fixation of his seniority, which do not settle the issue since he is claiming promotional benefits after his retirement from the year 1980 when he was ignored, which relief, to my mind, cannot be granted to him at this stage. Moreover, in the petition, the petitioner has mentioned the names of several persons who were promoted ignoring his case and he has also claimed seniority above those persons, who have not been impleaded in the petition as respondents. Moreover, in the petition, the petitioner has mentioned the names of several persons who were promoted ignoring his case and he has also claimed seniority above those persons, who have not been impleaded in the petition as respondents. Therefore, in such circumstances, in my view, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner, when he had not challenged their promotions at least within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the orders ignoring the case of the petitioner. 10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.