1. Inspector General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir State vide Advertisement Notice No.2 dated 9.8.1980 invited applications from eligible candidates, amongst others, for 50 posts of Sub Inspectors in regular police, 06 posts in Armed Police and 04 posts in Research and Development Cell. The posts were to carry pay scale of Rs.370-15-460-EB-20-550. The minimum qualification required for all the advertised posts was graduation from a recognized university and B.Sc in Criminology for Research and Development Cell. 2. The petitioners and private respondents (5 to 43) responded to the Advertisement notice. They participated in the same selection process and were vide order No.718 of 1982 dated 7.8.1982 appointed as Sub Inspectors in J&K Police Department. However, while petitioners were appointed as Sub Inspectors in the regular police (Executive Police), the respondents 5 to 43 came to be appointed as Sub Inspectors in J&K Armed Police. 3. The appointment order provided that the interse seniority of the appointees would be decided on the basis of merit secured by them in the training course they had to undergo at Police Training College Udhampur. The appointees were to be on probation for a period of three years. In terms of the appointment order the appointees were to report to Director Trainings/Principal Training College, Udhampur by 20.8.1982. On successful completion of the training course in October 1983, merit list was prepared by the Principal, Police Training College Udhampur (Annexure-3 on the petition). However, the Principal Police Training College, subsequently on 21.12.1983 prepared two separate seniority lists for regular (Executive Police) and Armed police annexed as Annexure 4 and 5 to the petition. Resultantly, the probationary Sub Inspectors appointed in Armed Police were able to get a higher place in the order of seniority than one they would have been able to get had there been a single and uniform seniority list for all the probationary Sub Inspectors based on their merit irrespective of the wing (Armed or Executive) to which they were allotted. Para 7 of the petition details changes in the seniority position of the petitioners because of preparation of two separate merit based seniority lists. 4. Para 7 of the petition details changes in the seniority position of the petitioners because of preparation of two separate merit based seniority lists. 4. The respondent-Department in the year 1987 vide order dated 7.7.1987 brought respondent No.5 to 24- Sub Inspectors in the Armed Police on promotion list "F" and thereafter vide order No.1030 of 1987 dated 19.9.1987 promoted them to the rank of officiating Inspectors in J&K Armed Police. The petitioners, though appointed as Sub Inspectors on the same date vide the same order (order dated 7.8.1982), were not considered for promotion. The respondent - Department thereafter vide order No.559 of 1989 dated 7.6.1989 brought 07 more Sub Inspectors of Armed Police (respondents 25 to 29) on promotion list "F" and after usual formalities promoted them vide order No.1001 of 1989 dated 4.10.1989 as officiating Inspectors in the Armed Police. 5. The petitioners 1 to 4 were vide order No.423 of 1993 dated 12.3.1993 promoted as officiating Inspectors in the Executive Police while petitioners 6 to 14, 15 and 36, 19, 23 to 35, 37 to 39 were promoted as officiating Inspectors in the Executive Police vide order Nos.423 of 1993 dated 12.3.1993, 139-C of 1993 dated 31.12.1993, 693 of 1995 dated 5.4.1995, 2(c) of 1996 dated 2.1.1996, Home 477(P) of 1998 dated 2.12.1998 respectively. 6. The petitioners obviously, were promoted as Inspectors a few years after private respondents, though they were their batch-mates and would have ranked senior to the respondents, had the authorities maintained a single and uniform seniority list on the basis of the merit obtained by the probationary Sub Inspectors (petitioners and private respondents) in training course undergone at Police Training College Udhampur. 7. The Director General of Police — respondent No.3 in the petition, on 13th July 1993 issued a tentative seniority list of Sub Inspectors (Executive and Armed Police) promoted/appointed as Inspectors up to February 1992. 8. The private respondents 5 to 43 figured at Sr. No. 115 to 133 and Sr. No. 226 to 245 in the tentative common seniority list. The official respondents acting on the aforesaid seniority list, vide order No. Home 46(F) of 1997 dated 6.2.1997 placed respondents 14,16,17,21 and 24 as Dy. Superintendent of Police in their own pay and grade. This was followed by order No.2302 of 1997 dated 20.8.1997 whereby respondent 5 -11,13,15,19,23 were placed as Dy. The official respondents acting on the aforesaid seniority list, vide order No. Home 46(F) of 1997 dated 6.2.1997 placed respondents 14,16,17,21 and 24 as Dy. Superintendent of Police in their own pay and grade. This was followed by order No.2302 of 1997 dated 20.8.1997 whereby respondent 5 -11,13,15,19,23 were placed as Dy. S.P in their own pay and grade. The rest of the private respondents were likewise placed s Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade vide order No. 129 (P) of 1998 dated 15.4.1998. The tentative seniority list was followed by final seniority list of Inspectors (Executive/Armed) issued vide order No.3615 of 1998 dated 26.10.1998. In the seniority list the respondents were again shown ahead of the petitioners. 9. The petitioners 1 to 14 and 15,18,36 were vide order Nos. Home-149 (P) of 2000 dated 27.3.2000 and Home-530 (P) of 2000 dated 11.12.2000 and Home-205 (P) of 2002 dated 2.4.2002 placed Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade. 10. The respondents vide Govt. Order No. 36(P) of 2002 dated 25.1.2002 promoted some of the private respondents as Dy. S.Ps in the pay scale of Rs.7500-250—12000 on substantive basis. However, regularisation of some of the petitioners as Dy. S,Ps was ordered vide Govt. Order No. Home 367(P)'of 2007 dated 1.08.2007. 11. The private respondents having stolen a march over the petitioners at the stage of their promotion as Inspectors, were favoured with promotion as Dy. S.Ps-Selection Grade and Superintendent of Police, the private respondents 5 to 11,13, 14,16,17,19 to 24 were placed as Superintendent of Police in their own pay and grade vide Govt. order No.283 (P) of 2003 dated 8.7.2003 even before they were placed in the Selection Grade. The Selection Grade came their way vide Govt. order No. 88 (P) of 2006 dated 17.3.2006 and Govt. Order No.Home-392(P) 2009 dated 18.5.2009. 12. The private respondents 12, 34 to 36 were vide Govt. order No.777(P) of 2009 dated 15.9.2009 placed the Dy. S.Ps as S.Ps on officiating basis in their own pay and grade. The promotion of respondents 25,26,28 -32 as S.Ps was regularised vide Govt. Order No. Home-929(P) of 2009 dated 18.11.2009. 13. The respondent No.1 in wake of litigation in connection with P.H.Q order No. 1263 of 1985 dated 3.12.1985 granting promotion to some of the Sub Inspectors retrospectively w.e.f 25.4.1978, were prompted to redraw seniority of Sub Inspectors. The promotion of respondents 25,26,28 -32 as S.Ps was regularised vide Govt. Order No. Home-929(P) of 2009 dated 18.11.2009. 13. The respondent No.1 in wake of litigation in connection with P.H.Q order No. 1263 of 1985 dated 3.12.1985 granting promotion to some of the Sub Inspectors retrospectively w.e.f 25.4.1978, were prompted to redraw seniority of Sub Inspectors. However, while redrawing the seniority list, the respondent No.1 did not extend the benefit that would otherwise flow, because of change in availability of the vacancies, to the parties to the present petition. The orders passed as a sequel to the redrawing of seniority list namely PHQ order No.886 of 2008 dated 15.3.2008, Govt. order No.597(P) of 2008 dated 4.9.2008 again restricted the benefit to the petitioners in the SWP No.1263/1985,1208/1986,3586/1997. 14. The petitioners' grievance is that they have been discriminated right from their appointment as Sub Inspectors on 1.7.1982, denied promotions as Inspectors, Dy. Superintendent of Police/Selection Grade Dy. S.Ps and Superintendent of Police or granted such promotion much after the promotions fell due to them. The petitioners trace infringements of their rights to failure on part of the respondents to frame a common seniority list of Sub Inspectors- (Executive and Armed) on the basis of merit obtained in the basic training course in 1983 as laid down in their appointment orders. The petitioners laying edifice of their claim on their appointment order dated 7.8.1982 wherein it was laid down that the inter se seniority of the appointees would be based on merit secured by them in the training course they had to undergo at Police Training College Udhampur, further claim that they were regularised as Dy. S.Ps vide order No. 367(P) of 2007 w.e.f the dates shown against each in the said Govt. order, instead of dates from which they were promoted vide order No. Home-149 (P) of 2000 dated 27.3.2000, Govt. order No.530 of 2000 dated 11.12.2000 and Govt. No. Home - 205 (P) of 2002 dated 2.4.2002 against the available vacancies. It is insisted that not only posts of Dy. S.Ps were available on the date(s) the petitioners were promoted as Dy. S.Ps in their pay and grade but the petitioners were also eligible for promotion on substantive basis on the said date(s) and therefore the respondents were not justified in regularising petitioners as Dy. It is insisted that not only posts of Dy. S.Ps were available on the date(s) the petitioners were promoted as Dy. S.Ps in their pay and grade but the petitioners were also eligible for promotion on substantive basis on the said date(s) and therefore the respondents were not justified in regularising petitioners as Dy. S.Ps from the date(s) different from dates on which they were promoted as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade (OPG for short). It is pointed out that though the private respondents Parveen Kumar (190/NGO) and Davinder Kumar Sharma (164/NGO) Inspectors vide Govt. order No. 149(P) of 2000 dated 27.3.2000 were promoted as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade alongside petitioners 1 to 15, on OPG basis yet the official respondents vide Govt. order No. Home-04 of 2002 (P) dated 7.1.2002 and Govt. order No. Home-248(P) of 2002 dated 26.4.2002 confirmed S/Shri Parveen Kumar and Davinder Kumar Sharma as Dy. S.Ps w.e.f 27.3.2000 while the petitioners 1 to 15 were left out and confirmed as Dy. S.Ps vide order dated 1.8.2007 from later date(s). The petitioners claim to be entitled to regularisation and pay & grade attached to the post from the date they were promoted as Dy. S.Ps on OPG basis (i.e 27.3.2000,11.12.2000 and 2.4.2002) as they performed the duties attached to the post from said dates and were later on regularised against the posts. Failure on part of official respondents to regularise petitioners as Dy. S.Ps from the date they have been working against the posts, according to petitioners is in conflict with Article 14 and 16 Constitution of India. 15. The petitioners are also aggrieved that the official respondents have not correctly calculated the "promotion — direct recruitment quota" prescribed under J&K Police Gazetted Service Rules. The failure on part of the official respondents to adhere to the quota, according to the petitioners has resulted in denial of promotion to them as Dy. S.Ps w.e.f the date(s) it fell due to them. It is next pleaded that the respondents 44 to 92 though appointed on substantive basis on the recommendation of State Public Service Commission as Dy. S.Ps vide Govt. order No.137-GAD of 2002 dated 22.1.2002 yet in the gradation list issued by respondent No.3 in 2009 there seniority as Dy. S.Ps has been fixed w.e.f 16,10.2001 i.e the date they were yet to be born on the cadre. S.Ps vide Govt. order No.137-GAD of 2002 dated 22.1.2002 yet in the gradation list issued by respondent No.3 in 2009 there seniority as Dy. S.Ps has been fixed w.e.f 16,10.2001 i.e the date they were yet to be born on the cadre. It is pleaded that the respondents could not have been vide Order No.393-GAD of 2005 dated 6.4.2005 appointed retrospectively as Dy. S.Ps w.e.f 16.10.2001. 16. The petitioners are also aggrieved that the respondents have failed to prepare and notify seniority list at proper time in terms of Rule 20 of Jammu & Kashmir (Police) Gazetted Service Rules 1994 at different levels and therefore failed to discharge their statutory duties. It is pointed out that because of non availability of the seniority list in accordance with the rules, the petitioners and for that matter other ranks are not in a position to know their exact seniority position and voice their grievance in the event they feel aggrieved with their position in the seniority list. The final seniority list issued by the Govt. Order No. Home-687(P) of 2011 dated 1.7.2011 is said to be contrary to Rule 24 Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1994. 17. The petitioners in para 31 of the petition detail discriminatory treatment meted out to them from time to time and claim to have filed a representation on 1.2.2009 to get their grievances set right followed by representation dated 27.7.2009. It is pleaded that the respondents 1 to 3 merely exchanged some communications touching the grievances set out in the representations without taking any concrete action on aforesaid representations. The petitioners claim to have also filed representation in January 2010 in response to a circular No.Home-2(P) of 2010 dated 7.1.2010 whereby objections were invited to re-fixation of seniority of Dy. S.P Sh. Ashok Kumar, though respondents 1 to 3 failed to taken any action on the representation so filed. 18. The petitioners on the strength of averments made and the grounds urged in the writ petition seek following relief: i) An appropriate writ, direction or order including one in the nature of writ of certiorari all the orders of promotions passed by the official respondents in favour of the private respondents by virtue of which they have been promoted as Inspectors of Police and Dy. SP's and Superintendent of Police including impugned Orders No. 1030 of 1987 dated 19.09.1987, Order No. 1001 of 1989 dated 4.10.1989, Order No. Home-46 (F) of 1997, Order No. 2382 of 1997 dated 20.8.1997, Order No. Home-129 (P) of 1998 dated 15.4.1998, Order No. 477 (P) of 1998 dated 2.12.1998, Order No. Home-36(P) of 2002 dated 25.1.2002, Order No. 283 (P) of 2003 dated 8.7.2003, Order No. 88(P) of 2006 dated 17.3.2006, Order No. 79(P) dated 27.2.2007, Order No. 392 (P) of 2009 dated 18.5.2009, Order no.777 (P) of 2009 dated 15.9.2009, Govt. Order No.Home 929(P) of 2009 dated 18.11.2009 so far the same relate to the private respondents and seniority lists in respects of private respondents including seniority lists issued vide endorsement letter No. M-45/92-30748-800 dated 30.1992, seniority list bearing Order No.3615 of 1998 dated 26.10.1998 and Graduation List of 2009 issued by respondent no. 3 in so far as the same relate to Private Respondents, be quashed. ii) An appropriate writ to declare illegal and set aside the impugned action of respondents not to frame common merit/seniority list of Sub Inspectors of Police (Executive) and Sub Inspectors of Police (Armed) of petitioner and Private Respondents 5-43. iii) An appropriate writ, direction or order including one in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to frame the common seniority list of petitioners and Private Respondents as Sub Inspectors on the basis of merit secured in the Police Training Course at Police Training College Udhampur in 1983 and accordingly consider the petitioners for further promotions as Inspectors retrospectively from the dates they were eligible and due to be promoted as Inspectors and grant consequential benefits to the petitioners retrospectively and consequently promote them as Inspectors retrospectively and further the respondents be also directed to also reframe the seniority list of petitioners and private respondents as Inspectors of Police and thereafter consider the petitioners for further promotions as Dy.SP's from the respective dates they were entitled to on the basis of aforesaid ref ramed seniority list and promote them as Dy. S.P also and grant consequential benefits retrospectively and also thereafter redraw the seniority list of the petitioners and private Respondents as Dy. S.P's and accordingly consider them for further promotion as Superintendent of Police and grant also consequential benefits as such retrospectively. S.P also and grant consequential benefits retrospectively and also thereafter redraw the seniority list of the petitioners and private Respondents as Dy. S.P's and accordingly consider them for further promotion as Superintendent of Police and grant also consequential benefits as such retrospectively. iv) An appropriate writ, direction or order including one in the nature of writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to fix the seniority of Respondents 44-92 as Dy.S.Ps from the date they were actually appointed as Dy. S.P i.e. 22.1.2002 and not earlier to that. v) An appropriate writ, direction or order including one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioners promoted as Dy. S.P s from the date they were eligible for the said posts after determining the actual vacancy position under promotional quota for the posts of Dy. S.P in the light of Recruitment Rules read with SRO 210 of 1994 and grant all consequential benefits retrospectively. vi) An appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Dy. S.Ps w.e.f 27.3.2000 i.e when the vacancies of Dy. S.P in promotional quota were available in the Deptt. with all consequential benefits in case they are not found entitled to promotion as Dy. S.Ps earlier to 27.3.2000. vii) An appropriate direction requiring the respondents to produce the entire record relating to the vacancy position of posts at the level of Inspectors w.e.f 1985 and onwards and at the level of Dy. S.P w.e.f 1997 and onwards besides all other relevant records, viii) An appropriate writ setting aside Government Order No. 393-GAD of 2005 dated 6.4.2005 and Government Order No.Home-687(P) of 2011 dated 1.7.2011, in terms of which final Seniority List of Deputy Superintendents of Police has been issued. 19. The official respondents oppose the writ petition on the grounds that as none of the legal, constitutional and fundamental rights of the petitioners have been violated, they have no right to maintain the writ petition. It is denied that Executive Police and Armed Police are one cadre and a common seniority list is to be prepared at the level of Sub Inspectors. It is denied that Executive Police and Armed Police are one cadre and a common seniority list is to be prepared at the level of Sub Inspectors. It is insisted that Armed Police is a different cadre like Telecommunication, Prosecution, Police Transport Workshop etc and on their appointment as Sub Inspectors, petitioners and private respondents 5 to 43 in Executive Police and Armed Police, they were rightly placed in separate seniority lists. It is pleaded that the seniority lists at the level of Inspectors merges into single — common seniority list and promotions there after are made on the basis of such seniority list. The official respondents maintain that in the present case the petitioners and private respondents 5 to 43 were placed in two seniority lists i.e one for Armed Police and other for Executive Police and after posts at the level of Inspectors became available in their respective cadres they were considered for promotion. It is pointed out that 18 posts of Inspectors became available in Armed Police cadre in 1987,7 posts in 1989 and some more posts in the year 1996 which were filled up by promotion of Sub Inspectors (respondents 5 to 43) from Armed Police cadre. In case of Executive Police cadre the posts of Inspectors became available between 1994-1996 and Sub Inspectors from Executive Police (Petitioners) were accordingly promoted as Inspectors; The official respondents are claimed to have issued a seniority list of Inspectors vide Order No.3615/1998 dated 26.10.1998 wherein petitioner and respondents were placed at an appropriate position. The promotions to the post of Dy. S.Ps are claimed to have been made on the basis of the seniority list of 1998, left unquestioned by the petitioners. The respondents, while admitting that petitioners were regularised as Inspectors vide Govt. Order No.Home-129 (P) 1998 dated 15.4.1998 and placed as Dy. S.Ps vide Govt. Order No.Home-149(P) of 2000 dated 27.3.2000, Home -530(P) of 2000 dated 11.12.2000, Home-2005(P) of 2002 dated 20.4.2002 in their own pay and grade, plead that their promotion as Dy. S.Ps was regularized vide Govt. Order No.Home-367(P) of 2007 dated 1.8.2007 from the dates shown again'' each as the posts of Dy. S.Ps under promotion quota were not available on the date(s) of their promotion on OPG basis against which the petitioners could have been regularised. 20. The official respondents deny that direct recruits appointed vide Govt. S.Ps was regularized vide Govt. Order No.Home-367(P) of 2007 dated 1.8.2007 from the dates shown again'' each as the posts of Dy. S.Ps under promotion quota were not available on the date(s) of their promotion on OPG basis against which the petitioners could have been regularised. 20. The official respondents deny that direct recruits appointed vide Govt. order No.137-GAD of 2002 dated 22.1.2002 were given seniority w.e.f 16.10.2001 vide Govt. order No.393-GAD of 2005 dated 6.4.2005. it is clarified that the respondents 44-92 and other selected candidates in Combined Civil Services Examinations 1999 were on their selection asked to report to Institute of Management of Public Administration (IMPA), as the Commission decided to allot services to the selected candidates only after they reported for training; that thereafter they were appointed w.e.f the date they reported for the training to IMPA. It is pointed out that the selected candidates having upon their selection duly reported to IMPA and some of them having resigned from the posts held prior to their selection, they could not be denied appointment from the date they actually joined the service. The petitioners' grievances that respondents 44 to 92 appointed on 22.1.2002 were retrospectively appointed w.e.f 16.10.2001 and allowed to figure in the seniority list over and above the petitioners, according to official respondents, is misplaced. 21. The respondents 44 to 92 in their reply reiterate the stand taken by the official respondents, as regards their appointment to the service w.e.f 16.10.2001. The respondents takes a threshold objection to maintainability of the petition on the ground of laches. It is pleaded that the petitioners have woken up after a long slumber to agitate a cause that on their own admission was available about a decade back. The respondents takes a threshold objection to maintainability of the petition on the ground of laches. It is pleaded that the petitioners have woken up after a long slumber to agitate a cause that on their own admission was available about a decade back. It is pointed out that the Public Service Commission vide communication dated 26.9.2001 forwarded a list of selected candidates for appointment to different services to the State Government; that the Commission unmindful of SRO 161 dated 17.7.1995, did not allot the services to the selected candidates as the Commission wanted to postpone the allotment of services till it had a good idea of number of selected candidates, actually willing to accept the offer and take up the job; that the "offers of appointment" were issued to the selected candidates on 16.10.2001 directing them to join IMPA before 10.11.2001 and the list of the candidates who joined, was forwarded to the Commission on 28.11.2001 for allotment of services. It is further pleaded that the commission vide communication dated 11.12.2001 conveyed the allotment of services to selected candidates where after the Government order No.137-GAD of 2002 dated 22.1.2002 was issued and the appointment directed to take effect from 11.11.2001 in respect of candidates who joined IMPA from 16.10.2001 to 10.11.2001 in respect of candidates who joined after 10.11.2001 from the date they actually joined. It is pleaded that as the Government order No.137-GAD of 2002 dated 22.1.2002 was likely to expose selected candidates to monetary loss as also the loss of service for the period 16.10.2001 to 10.11.2001 because a number of selected candidates already serving the Government in different capacities had resigned from their respective posts prior to 16.10-2001, the Government to remove the hardship, issued Govt. order No.393-G AD of 2005 dated 6.4.2005 clarifying that the appointees shall be entitled to salary from the actual date of joining at IMP A Jammu/Srinagar and that the seniority of appointees shall be determined strictly as per merit and rule 24 J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956. It is pleaded that the benefit given to the respondents 44-92 under Govt. It is pleaded that the benefit given to the respondents 44-92 under Govt. order No.393-GAD of 2005 dated 6.4.2005 was not restricted to only police service but given across the board to all the services to which the selected candidates were appointed, as omission to allot services at the time of forwarding selection list, was likely to expose all the selected candidates to monetary loss and break in service. 22. The petitioners in their rejoinder refute the case set out by the official respondents that as no post of Dy. S.Ps was vacant from promotion quota in the year 2000-2002 i.e the dates on which petitioners were placed as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade, against which the petitioners could have been regularised. The petitioners referring to facts and figures in para-5 of the rejoinder insist that because of retirement/promotions/new creations as on 1.1.2001, 121 posts of Dy S.Ps in promotion quota were vacant, as was evident from Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 4 along with affidavit in LPA (SW) No.173/2010 titled Tabassum Parveen and others v. State. The official respondents are said to have against 121 available vacancies in promotional quota regularised 114 Incharge Dy. S.Ps and left 7 posts and 2 posts under reserve category unfilled. It is further pleaded that out of 114 Dy. S.Ps regularised on 25.1.2002,14 Dy. S.Ps had already retired from service before 1.3.2000 and when added to 38 vacancies that had become available due to retrospective promotion given to 38 Dy. S.Ps in wake of Supreme Court judgment in Shiekh Abdul Rashid and others v. State and others, a total number of 61 vacancies of Dy. S.Ps under promotional quota were available between 1.3.2000 to 1.1.2001. The respondents while giving details of the Dy. S.P posts under promotion quota vacant on 1.1.2001 are said to have not included 10% of the sanctioned strength of deputation reserve and 10% leave reserve vacancies. 23. S.Ps under promotional quota were available between 1.3.2000 to 1.1.2001. The respondents while giving details of the Dy. S.P posts under promotion quota vacant on 1.1.2001 are said to have not included 10% of the sanctioned strength of deputation reserve and 10% leave reserve vacancies. 23. The petitioners further plead that as per the Gradation List issued by Police Headquarter in 2012, sanctioned strength of Superintendent of Police cadre is 221, as 20% and 10% of sanctioned strength of 170 on account of deputation reserve posts and leave reserve posts are to be added to the sanctioned strength and that only 133 officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police are in place and 88 posts of Superintendent of Police are lying vacant. The petitioners insist that they because of availability of vacancies are entitled to be promoted as Superintendent of Police from the dates it fell due to them. 24. I have gone through the pleadings and the record placed on the file. I have heard counsel for the parties at length. 25. The grievances voiced by the petitioners as regards time of alleged infringement of rights and the cause accrued to the petitioners to seek their redressal, may be categorised as under:- i) That the official respondents unmindful of mandate of Govt. Order No.718 of 1982 dated 7.8.1982 appointing petitioners and respondents 5 to 43 as Sub Inspectors in Executive Police and Armed Police, did not prepare a single seniority list based on their performance, in the training course at Police Training College Udhampur, resulting in denial of promotion to the petitioners as Inspectors/Dy. S.Ps etc. at the time it would have otherwise fallen due to the petitioners had the respondents instead of maintaining separate seniority lists for Sub Inspectors maintained a single seniority list. ii) That the petitioners promoted as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade vide Govt. Order Nos.Home-149 (P) of 2000 dated 27.3.2000, Home-530 (P) of 2000 dated 11.12.2000 and Home-205 (P) of 2002 dated 2.4.2002 were not regularised from the date(s) they were so promoted on OPG basis, even though Dy. S.P posts in promotion quota were available on aforesaid dates. iii) That the respondents 44 to 92 — direct recruits appointed vide Govt. order No. 137-GAD of 2002 dated 22.1.2002 were illegally given retrospective appointment vide Govt. S.P posts in promotion quota were available on aforesaid dates. iii) That the respondents 44 to 92 — direct recruits appointed vide Govt. order No. 137-GAD of 2002 dated 22.1.2002 were illegally given retrospective appointment vide Govt. Order No. 393-GAD of 2005 dated 6.4.2005 w.e.f 16.10.2001 and therefore allowed to steal a march over petitioners appointed as Dy.S.Ps on OPG basis in 2000-2002 but regularised from a later date. 26. The cause to voice the first grievance and seek its redressal by initiating appropriate proceedings, accrued to the petitioners on 21.12.1983 when the Principal, Police Training College, Udhampur prepared two separate seniority/merit lists 'for Sub Inspectors Executive Police and Sub Inspectors Armed Police i.e petitioner and respondents 5 to 43. However, the petitioner did not agitate the matter. The cause to work out appropriate remedy again accrued on 7.7.1987 when respondents 5 to 24 were brought on promotion List "F" and thereafter on 19.9.1987 when the aforesaid respondents were promoted as officiating Inspectors in the Armed Police. Similarly a cause to invoke writ jurisdiction of this court or to press into service any other remedy available to the petitioners arose on 4.10.1989 when respondent 25 to 29 were promoted as Officiating Inspectors. The petitioners did not wake up on said date or when the respondent No.3 issued tentative seniority list on 13.7.1993 including the private respondents 5 to 43 in the list or when the official respondents vide order No., Home-46(F) of 1997 dated 6.2.1997 placed respondents 14,16,17,21 and 24 as Dy. S.Ps of Police in their own pay and grade and thereafter vide order No.2302 of 1997 dated 20.8.1997 placed respondent 5-11,13,15,19,23 and vide order No.129(P) of 1998 dated 15.4.1998 placed rest of the private respondents 5 to 43 as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade. The petitioners did not find it necessary to take steps for redressal of their grievances when the official respondents vide order 0.3615 of 1998 dated 26.10.1998 issued final seniority list of Inspectors wherein the private respondents 5 to 43 were shown ahead of the petitioners. Eyebrows were not raised when some of the private respondents were vide Govt. order No.36(P) of 2002 dated 25.1.2002 promoted on regular and substantive basis as Dy.S.P in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-250-12000 and later vide Govt. order No.283(P) of 2003 dated 8.7.2003 and Govt. Eyebrows were not raised when some of the private respondents were vide Govt. order No.36(P) of 2002 dated 25.1.2002 promoted on regular and substantive basis as Dy.S.P in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-250-12000 and later vide Govt. order No.283(P) of 2003 dated 8.7.2003 and Govt. order No.777(P) of 2009 dated 15.9.2009 private respondents 5 to 11, 13, 14, 16,17,19 to 24 and private respondents 12,34 to 36 were placed as officiating Superintendents of Police and thereafter vide Govt. Order No.Home-929(P) of 2009 dated 18.11.2009 respondents 25,26,28-32 regularised as Superintendent of Police. In short the petitioners slept over the matter for 27 long years, though cause to agitate their grievance accrued to them after regular intervals. Last three decades are littered with a number of wakeup calls and lost opportunities, that came the way of the petitioners. The question that stares at us for an answer, is whether the petitioners can be permitted to agitate a cause that has come to them a little less than three decades back. We need to be reminded that all the subsequent alleged violation of their rights till the year 2000-2002, reflected in first grievance has its roots in separate seniority/merit lists prepared by Principal, Police Training College Udhampur and later acted upon by the official respondents. 27. The petitioners to justify delay in agitating the matter plead that in 1987 when first batch of the respondents 5 to 43 was promoted as Inspectors, the petitioners had their seniors in the Executive cadre ahead of them and therefore had no cause to question the promotion of the said batch and that as in 1989 the petitioners' seniors in the Executive cadre were promoted, there was again no reason by the petitioners to project their grievance. It is further pleaded that the first batch of the petitioners was promoted as Inspectors in 1993 and the petitioners again did not have a cause to come to the court. The tentative seniority list of 1993, according to the petitioners, did not include the petitioners and the petitioners could not file their objection to their tentative seniority list. It is next urged that the petitioners were posted in far flung areas of the State, making it impossible for the petitioners to work out their remedy against infringement of their rights. 28. It is next urged that the petitioners were posted in far flung areas of the State, making it impossible for the petitioners to work out their remedy against infringement of their rights. 28. The explanation put forward by the petitioners to justify inordinate and long delay, is far from convincing. The petitioners as already pointed out had a cause to agitate the matter in 1983 itself when a separate seniority/merit list was prepared by the Principal, Police Training College Udhampur. The argument that as 97 Sub Inspectors from Executive cadre were, senior, to the petitioners, they could not voice their grievance against promotion of the respondents 5 to 43 as Inspectors' in 1987 and 1989 is self defeating. The petitioners indirectly admit that the Executive Police and Armed Police were two different cadres and members of the Executive Police cadre had to stand in the queue in their own cadre. This apart, the petitioners' grievance was that they and the private respondents 5 to 43 having been appointed in one selection process in 1983 they had a right to be promoted as Inspectors, on the basis of their common seniority/merit list prepared on the basis of their performance in the training undergone in Police Training College, Udhampur. Once the private respondents 5 to 43 were promoted as Inspectors ahead of petitioners, they had a cause to feel aggrieved and agitate the matter. They therefore had not to feel dissuaded from working out their remedy only because, according to them, there were 97 Sub Inspectors senior to them in the Executive Police eadre. Same is true about tentative seniority list of 1993, the promotions given one after another, to the private respondents 5 to 43 on the basis of tentative seniority list of 1993 and the final seniority list of 1998 where the private respondents 5 to 43 appeared ahead of the petitioners. However, as already pointed out petitioners at their own option, decided to sleep over the matter for 27 long years. 29. There is no scope for any disagreement with the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the rule "that the court may not inquire into the belated and state claims is not a rule of law", but as held in Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar and ors. v. State of Maharashtra and ors. 1974(1) SCC 317 . 29. There is no scope for any disagreement with the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the rule "that the court may not inquire into the belated and state claims is not a rule of law", but as held in Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar and ors. v. State of Maharashtra and ors. 1974(1) SCC 317 . "a rule of practicebased on sound and proper exercise of discretion", and that "each case must depend on its own facts". However, Mr. Shah, cannot find any support from the above legal propositions. 30. In the present case the negligence on part of the petitioners to project their grievance, is so gross and delay so inordinate that it would not be permissible even in light of the case law relied upon by Mr. Shah to enquire into the petitioners' claim. While holding so I draw support from law laid down in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, 1969(1) Supreme Court Cases 185, P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1975 1 Supreme Court Cases 152, Gian Singh Mann v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 266, State of M.P and others v. Nand Lal and others, (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 566, Dr.Kashinath G. Jalmi and another v. The Speaker and others (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 703 clubbed with Ramakanth D. Khalap v. The Speaker Legislative Assembly of Goa and others, Churchill Alemao v. The Speaker, Legislative Assembly, State of Rajasthan and others v. D.R.Laxmi and others, (1966) 6 Supreme Court Cases 445, B.S.Bajwa and another v. State of Punjab and others, (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 523, High Court of Judicature of Patna v. Madan Mohan Prasad and others, (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 65. 31. The second grievance set out in the petition relates to the date of regularisation of the petitioners as Dy. S.Ps. Some of the petitioners, as pointed out earlier were placed as Dy. S.Ps on 27.3.2002, 11.12.2002 and 2.4.2002. 31. The second grievance set out in the petition relates to the date of regularisation of the petitioners as Dy. S.Ps. Some of the petitioners, as pointed out earlier were placed as Dy. S.Ps on 27.3.2002, 11.12.2002 and 2.4.2002. The Government order No.Home-367(P) of 2007 dated 1.8.2007 would reveal that petitioners 1 to 5 have been regularised from 1.3.2002, petitioner No. 6 from 1.4.2002, petitioners 7 & 8 from 1.5.2002, petitioner 9 & 10 from 1.7.2002, petitioner No. 11 from 1.9.2002, petitioner No.12 from 1.10.2002, petitioners 13,14, 15 and 16 from 16.4.2003, petitioners 17,18, and 19 from 1.5.2003, petitioner No.20 from 1.6.2003, petitioners 21, 22 and 23 from 1.7.2003, petitioner No.24 from 22.7.2003, petitioner No.25 from 1.8.2003, petitioners 26, 27,28,29 & 30 on 11.9.2003, petitioner No.31 & 32 on 1.10.2003, petitioner No.33 on 1.11.2003, petitioner No.34 on 1.2.2004, petitioner No.35 on 17.2.2004, petitioner No.37,38 on 27.3.2004, petitioner No.39 on 2.5.2004. The petitioners claim makes it necessary to find out whether the posts of Dy. S.Ps were available in the promotion quota on 27.3.2000,11.12.2000, 2.4.2002 and other dates when the petitioners were placed as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade. In the event such posts were available on aforesaid dates, failure on part of the official respondents to regularise their promotion w.e.f such dates would be objectionable and the order No.Home-367(P) of 2007 dated 1.8.2007 to the said extent would have to be set aside. However, in case the vacancies of the Dy. S.Ps in promotion quota were not, as a matter of fact, available on the dates of petitioners' OPG promotions, they cannot be heard complaining about their date(s) of regularisation as Dy. S.Ps. 32. The Jammu and Kashmir Police (Gazetted Service) Rules 1977 notified vide SRO 33 of 1977 dated 19.1.1977 occupied the field till 3rd April 2002 when the aforesaid rules were replaced by Jammu & Kashmir (Gazetted Service) Rules of 2002 notified vide SRO 132 of 2002 dated 3.4.2002. The Rules of 1977 did not give the sanctioned strength of the service nor was any provision made in the Rules of 1977 for Deputation Reserve, Leave Reserve or Training Reserve posts. The Rules of 1977 did not give the sanctioned strength of the service nor was any provision made in the Rules of 1977 for Deputation Reserve, Leave Reserve or Training Reserve posts. The Jammu and Kashmir Gazetted Service (Amended) Rules 1994 notified vide SRO 210 of 1994 dated 5.10.1994 applicable amongst other services to the Jammu and Kashmir Police (Gazetted) Service while laying down that the number of persons recruited by promotion/selection shall not at any time exceed 50% of the number of posts in the respective cadre, in Explanation to Rule 3 provided that the posts shall mean the Duty posts, Deputation posts and Leave Reserve posts, if any, sanctioned for respective cadres and that the posts under the Training Reserve, if any, sanctioned for respective cadres shall be deemed to be direct recruitment posts. A bare look at Rule 3 of Jammu and Kashmir Police Gazetted Service (Amended) Rules 1994 would reveal that Rules of 1994 did not create any Deputation Reserve, Leave Reserve and Training Reserve posts but clarified that such posts whenever created in Gazetted service to which the rules of 1994 applied, would be counted with the duty posts with the clarification that Training Reserve would fall to the share of direct recruits. The State Govt. vide Govt. order No. GR-349(Police) of 1986 dated 26.9.1986 accorded sanction to creation of 10% of total strength of Dy. S.Ps as Deputation Reserve posts, 10% of such strength as Leave Reserve posts and 15% of the posts as Training Reserve posts. Explanation to Rule-3 of the Rules of 1994 therefore is applicable to Jammu & Kashmir Police (Gazetted) Service. 33. It is pertinent to point put that the petitioners in their petition have not given the break up of the Dy.S.P posts available on the date(s) they were placed as Dy. S.P in their own pay and grade so as to re-enforce their claim that their promotion as Dy.S.Ps required to be regularised w.e.f the date(s) they were placed as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade. However, in their rejoinder they insist that there were 434 and 454 post of Dy. S.Ps on 1.3.2000 and 1.1.2001 respectively out of which 193 and 202 posts were to fall to the share of promotees while 241 and 252 posts were to go to direct recruits on the said dates i.e 1.3.2000 and 1.1.2001. However, in their rejoinder they insist that there were 434 and 454 post of Dy. S.Ps on 1.3.2000 and 1.1.2001 respectively out of which 193 and 202 posts were to fall to the share of promotees while 241 and 252 posts were to go to direct recruits on the said dates i.e 1.3.2000 and 1.1.2001. The petitioners further plead that only 162 promotee Dy.S.Ps were in place on 1.3.2000 and 169 on 1.1.2001; that 88 vacancies of Dy. S.Ps in promotion quota were vacant on 1.9.2000 and further 33 vacancies were added due to promotions/retirements up to 1.1.2001 and resultantly 121 (88+33) posts of Dy. S.Ps in promotion quota were vacant on 1.1.2001. It is, however, admitted that as against 121 available vacancies 114 Dy. S.Ps promoted on OPG basis (including private respondents 5 to 43) were regularised vide Govt. order No. Home-36(P) of 2002 dated 25.1.2002 leaving 7 vacancies unfilled; that 14 of the 114 regularised Dy. S.Ps had retired before the order of their regularisation dated 25.1.2002 and even before 1.3.2000 and that out of remaining 98 Dy. S.Ps 38 were given retrospective promotion in wake of Supreme Court Judgement in Shiekh Abdul Rashid v. State and others. It is insisted that 61 posts of Dy. S.Ps were vacant as on 1.3.2000 (7 backlog + 2 Reserve Category + 14 already retired + 38 Retrospective promotion) against which those of the petitioners promoted on OPG basis on 27.3.2000,11.12.2000 and 20.4.2002 and thereafter could be regularised. The petitioners' claim that 38 posts are to be take to have been available on the date first batch of petitioners was placed as Dy. S.Ps on OPG basis i.e 27.3.2000 on the ground that 38 Dy.S.Ps were given retrospective promotion in wake of Apex Court judgment in Shiekh Abdul Rashid v. State and others, is not to be accepted for the reason that the said promotions have been held in Anita Sharma v. State and others, SWP No. 3065/2010, not to be in conformity with the rules and fall outside ambit of the aforesaid Apex Court judgement. This, however, does not end or defeat the petitioners' claim for promotion w.e.f. the date they were placed as Dy. This, however, does not end or defeat the petitioners' claim for promotion w.e.f. the date they were placed as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade because even if 38 posts are deleted or subtracted from the number of vacancies according to the petitioners available on 1.3.2000 their claim survives to the extent of availability of 23 posts of Dy. S.Ps on 1.3.2000. it is important to point out that a cause accrued to the petitioners to question their date of substantive promotion as Dy.S.Ps vide order No. Home 367(P) of 2007 dated 1.8.2007. Their claim in this regard cannot be said to suffer from delay and laches. The record pertaining to availability of posts in the cadre of Dy. S.Ps on 1.3.2000 due to retirements and promotions is not available to this court, an exercise to work out exact number of available posts on 27.3.2000,11.12.2000 and 2.4.2002 and thereafter is to be left to respondents 1 to 4 so that the petitioners grievances in this regard is redressed. The petitioners as stated to work out the vacancy position have relied on affidavit filed by the official respondents in LPA (SW) No.173/2010 titled Tabassum Parveen and ors. v. State of J&K & ors. (Annexure R-3 to the Rejoinder) 34. The 3rd grievance that Govt. order No.393-GAD of 2005 dated 6.4.2005, whereby date of appointment of respondents 44 to 92 was fixed as 16.10.2001, was untenable under law for the reason that the State Govt. was not competent to make such order giving retrospective effect to the appointment of respondents 44 to 92 and further that it prejudicially affected the petitioners' rights, is devoid of any substance. The respondents 44 to 92 after their selection to the Combined Civil Service were like other selected candidates, asked to report to the Institute of IMPA from 16.10.2001 to 10.11.2001. The petitioners accordingly reported to IMPA. Their formal appointment was made vide Govt. order No.137-GAD of 2002 dated 21.1.2002 after the State Public Service Commission allotted service to the selected candidates. The aforesaid order gave effect to their appointment from 11.11.2001. The respondents 44 to 92 who had reported to IMPA on 16.10.2001 or on a date thereafter but before 10.11.2001, were put to a disadvantage in-as-much-as the period between their actual date of joining at IMPA and 11.11.2001 was left un accounted. The Govt. The aforesaid order gave effect to their appointment from 11.11.2001. The respondents 44 to 92 who had reported to IMPA on 16.10.2001 or on a date thereafter but before 10.11.2001, were put to a disadvantage in-as-much-as the period between their actual date of joining at IMPA and 11.11.2001 was left un accounted. The Govt. order No.393-GAD of 2005 dated 6.4.2005 was only a measure to un-do injustice done to the respondents 44 to 92 who had reported to IMPA on 16.10.2001 or before 11.11.2001. It is rightly pointed out by the respondents that a good number of selected candidates were in Government service before appearing in Combined Service Examination held in 1999. They on their selection by the Public Service Commission were to resign from their respective posts so as to be able to report at IMPA. It would result in monetary loss to such of the petitioners in case their appointment was not given effect from the date they actually reported to IMPA. Even those of the respondents who were not in service before their selection, could not be denied such benefit from the date they joined at IMPA. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petitioners' claim that the Govt. order No.393-GAD of 2005 dated 6.4.2005 gave retrospective effect to appointment of respondents 44 to 92 from 16.10.2001 or that the order is beyond jurisdiction and infringes any of the petitioners' rights. 35. From the above discussions it emerges that petitioners' grievance as regards separate seniority/merit list prepared by Principal Police Training College Udhampur ( 10/1983 and 12/1983- Annexure-4) and all along acted upon by the respondent 1 to 4 and the consequential orders bearing order No.1030 of 1987 dated 19.9.1987, order No.1001 of 1989 dated 4.10.1989, Order No.559 of 1989 dated 7.6.1989, Order No.423 of 1993 dated 12.3.1993,139-C of 1993 dated 31.12.1993, order No.Home-46(F) of 1997, order No.129(P) of 1998 dated 15.4.1998, Order No.Home-36(P) of 2002 dated 25.1.2002 Order No.283(P) of 2003 dated 8.7.2003, Order No.88(P) of 2006 dated 17.3.2006 and all other orders passed on the basis of and having their roots in Annexure-4 to the petition, cannot be entertained and dealt with because of inordinate and inexplicable delay stretching to a little less than three decades on their part in working out remedy to question the separate seniority lists of 1983 and other orders based on such order, with reasonable dispatch. The claim in this regard is belated and state and is not entertainable on the principles of acquiescence and laches. The grievance relating to Government order No.393-GAD of 2005 dated 6.4.2005 is also without any cause and therefore meritless. However, there appears merit in the petitioners claim that their date of substantive promotion deserves to be given fresh look as sufficient posts were available in the promotion quota on 27.3.2000,11.12.2000 and 2.4.2002 and thereafter when they were placed as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade against which they could be substantively promoted. 36. Viewed thus, the writ petition as regards quashment of order 10/83,12/83 of Principal, Police Training College, Udhampur, compiling separate seniority/merit lists of the petitioners and the respondents 5 to 43 (Annexure-4 to the petition) and the subsequent orders mentioned in the relief clause based on aforesaid order as also Order No.393-GAD of 2005 dated 6.4.2005 fails and is accordingly dismissed. 37. However, the petition as regards petitioners' claim to promotion as Dy. S.Ps on svibstantive basis w.e.f the date of their placement as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade (OPG) has merit and the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to work out afresh the exact number of vacancies of Dy. S.Ps in promotional quota as on the dates the petitioners were placed as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade and in the event it is found that such vacancies were available to he filled up by promotion in accordance with Jammu & Kashmir Police (Gazetted) Service Rules 2002, on said dates to give effect to substantive promotion of the petitioners from the date(s) they were placed as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade. The respondents 1 to 4 shall complete the exercise within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment giving all affected an opportunity to project their stand. So viewed, the order No. Home 367(P) of 2007 dated 1.8.2007 to the extent it determines the dates of regularization/substantive promotion of petitioners as Dy.S.Ps, is set aside and the respondents 1 to 4 directed to pass a fresh order after the exercise as directed, is made. Such an exercise may not stand in the way of respondents 1 to 4 to accord consideration to the petitioners placed as Dy. Such an exercise may not stand in the way of respondents 1 to 4 to accord consideration to the petitioners placed as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade and thereafter substantively promoted though from different dates, as well as the private respondents for promotion to the available posts of Superintendent of Police, in case the number of available vacancies of Superintendent of Police is equal or more to the number of petitioners and private respondents, put together. Since the parties have been litigating over the matter for quite some time, some of the appointees of 1983 i.e petitioners and private respondents 5 to 43, must have retired by now making it easier for respondents 1 to 4 to accord consideration to the promotion of petitioners and private respondents. In case, such an option is available and exercised and promotion of the petitioners, substantively promoted as Dy. S.Ps from a date later than the date they were placed as Dy. S.Ps in their own pay and grade, as Superintendents of Police is ordered, their seniority can be made subject to the date of their substantive promotion, determined on fresh examination of the matter as directed, by the official respondents. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.