ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter no. 151 dated 16.06.2005, issued by the Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the `Board’ for the sake of brevity), by which the representation filed by the petitioner for consideration of his case for promotion on Class III post as per recommendation sent by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Gaya Circle, Gaya vide letter no. 815 dated 13.03.1978 has been rejected after lapse of more than two decades. 2. I.A. No. 6304 of 201l has been filed by the petitioner for amendment of the aforesaid relief by way of addition challenging order dated 31.07.2003, issued by the Board holding that the promotion of the petitioner to Class III post was not possible. Specific claim of the petitioner is that he could not challenge the said order earlier as the said letter containing the order was addressed to another authority and the petitioner had no knowledge and he, for the first time, learnt about it from the respondents’ counter affidavit. However, learned counsel for the respondents claimed that it had been sent earlier to the petitioner in 2003 itself, but no receipt could be produced by the respondents. In the said facts and circumstances and also in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Mohinder Singh Gill & another vrs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 852, the said interlocutory application is allowed and the relief sought for therein is permitted to be added to the relief claimed in the writ petition. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an unskilled Khalasi in the Board on 08.04.1977, whereafter the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer wrote letter dated 28.04.1978 to the Electrical Superintending Engineer asking him to appoint the petitioner on Class III post considering his qualification, but in reply the Electrical Superintending Engineer sent letter dated 31.03.1981 to the General Manager stating that the appointment of the petitioner on Class III post was beyond his jurisdiction, hence the General Manager might himself appoint the petitioner as he had ample authority. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that much thereafter also the Deputy Director, Personnel, wrote letter dated 28.07.1987 to the Electrical Superintending Engineer for the same purpose asking why the petitioner was not appointed on Class III post and, thereafter, the Secretary of the Board sent letter dated 22.09.1989 to the General Manager seeking clarification on the issue of the petitioner’s appointment as on 18.02.1982 the Joint Secretary of the Board sent a letter to the General Manager for certain information. Thereafter, the matter remained pending and on 09.04.2003 the General Manager wrote to the Secretary of the Board for appointment of the petitioner on Grade III post as there was no burden. When no heed was paid to the said letter, the petitioner also filed an application before the Secretary of the Board, but the Secretary of the Board, vide the impugned letter dated l6.05.2005, rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that the petitioner was not a Graduate and, thereafter, the respondents also stopped taking work from the petitioner. Hence this writ petition was filed on 08.07.2005. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that the Board issued a standing order on 12.08.1959, in which required qualification provided for Clerks (Class-III) was Matriculation with Mathematics as a subject and the petitioner fulfilled the said requirement as he was Intermediate with Mathematics in Second Division. Subsequently, Recruitment, Promotion and Cadre Rules for subordinate services of the Board were promulgated on 22.07.1991, by which requisite qualification for Class III post was enhanced from Matriculation to Intermediate with Mathematics as its subject. Hence the requirement was never a Graduate, rather to the utmost it was Intermediate only. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Deputy Director, Personnel of the Board wrote letter dated 01.07.2006 to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of Gaya Division to take steps for taking work from the petitioner, whereafter the Electrical Superintending Engineer sent letter dated 07.07.2006 to the Assistant Electrical Engineer to act as per the direction of the Deputy Director, Personnel dated 01.07.2006 and, accordingly, office order dated 07.07.2006 was issued directing the petitioner to do legal works, account matters, title matters and other matters connecting law independently. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the petitioner fulfilled all the requisite qualifications at the relevant time as he worked since 1977 to the satisfaction of all concerned. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the petitioner fulfilled all the requisite qualifications at the relevant time as he worked since 1977 to the satisfaction of all concerned. No reason has been shown by the respondents why the petitioner was not promoted earlier since 1978 to Class III post although work of Class-III post was regularly and satisfactorily been taken from him. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the matter was unnecessarily lingered by the authorities concerned since 1978 without giving any reason and ultimately when new Rules were introduced in 2005, the impugned letter was issued on 16.05.2005 rejecting his claim of promotion. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in case of Y.V. Rangaiah and others vrs. Stte of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 852 and in case of P. Mahendran and others vrs. Matteesh Y. Annigeri and others, reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 405 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioner never applied for appointment on Class III post as is apparent from the letter of the Electrical Superintending Engineer dated 08.11.1989. The petitioner started working as muster-roll worker, which was converted into the post of unskilled Khalasi vide office order of the Electrical Superintending Engineer dated 08.04.1997 with effect from 01.04.1977. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Board from time to time as per the requirement of the posts invited internal applications to select the competent departmental candidates on the basis of written test and interview. Central Electric Supply Area Board, Patna held the written test and interview on 20.01.1980 for the selection of Correspondence Clerk/Sectional Clerk (Class III post), but the petitioner did not appear in the said written test and interview and as such his case was not considered although 61 departmental candidates were selected for appointment on the posts of Telephone Attendant vide office order no. 105 contained in memo no. 697 dated 15.02.1980 of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Central Area Electricity, Patna. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents averred that further on 02.03.1986, 67 successful candidates, who appeared in written test and interview, were appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk/Bill Clerk (Class III post) vide office order no. 242 dated 09.05.1986 of the Central Area Board, Patna. 697 dated 15.02.1980 of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Central Area Electricity, Patna. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents averred that further on 02.03.1986, 67 successful candidates, who appeared in written test and interview, were appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk/Bill Clerk (Class III post) vide office order no. 242 dated 09.05.1986 of the Central Area Board, Patna. Again the petitioner did not appear in the said written test and interview, hence his case was not considered. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents asserted that the petitioner was never himself comfortable to compete with other co-workers and get himself appointed on Grade-III post i.e. Correspondence Clerk/Sectional Clerk/Typist-cum-Clerk/Junior Accounts Clerk/Bill Clerk. It is worth mentioning here that workman appeared in written test and interview held by the department and the successful candidates were appointed on the desired post. However, mere possessing the qualification does not give the right to be selected on the equivalent post without appearing in the internal written test and interview, as provided in Rules. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents claimed that there was no question of quashing of the Board’s letter no. 151 dated 16.05.2005 because the petitioner has nothing to do with the direction issued by the Secretary of the Board to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Magadh Electricity Supply Area, Gaya through which it was asked to explain why the petitioner was allowed to continue to deal with the work of legal section, when he is not competent to do the said work. The petitioner’s claim for appointment on the post of Grade-III was rejected by the Deputy Director, Personnel of the Board vide letter no. 743 dated 31.07.2003. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Board vide its notification no. 905 dated 14.09.1999, has modified the required qualification for appointment on Grade-III post from Matriculation to Bachelor Degree and since the petitioner is merely a Matriculate, he cannot be considered for appointment on Class-III post as he does not possess the required qualification. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the petitioner was appointed as an unskilled Khalasi (Class-IV post) and he is still working on the same post and he was never removed in the year 2005, rather he was merely stopped from doing the work, which was entrusted to him at the relevant time. Hence on that score, the petitioner cannot raise any dispute. 16. Hence on that score, the petitioner cannot raise any dispute. 16. It transpires that the petitioner had relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Y.V. Rangaiah (supra), in paragraph 9 of which it has been held as follows :- “9.Having heard the counsel for the parties, we find no force in either of the two contentions. Under the old rules a panel had to be prepared every year in September. Accordingly, a panel should have been prepared in the year 1976 and transfer or promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II should have been made out of that panel. In that event the petitioners in the two representation petitions who ranked higher than the respondents Nos. 3 to 15 would not have been deprived of their rights of being considered for promotion. The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not on the Statewide basis and therefore, there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules.” 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in case of P. Mahendran (supra), in paragraph 5 of which it has been held as follows :- “5. It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. If a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. If a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rule of 1987 does not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary-intendment for enforcing the Rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rule was not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force. The amended Rule could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter.” 18. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed on Class IV post of unskilled Khalasi. Although he had qualification of Intermediate, which was required at the relevant time for Class-III post, but the petitioner never applied when internal applications were invited by the authorities from Class IV employees from time to time for written test and interview required for such promotion to Class III posts. It is also an undisputed fact that the written test and interview were taken from time to time, in which the petitioner never applied, whereas, other similarly situated Grade IV employees applied and appeared in the required examination and test and after being successful, they were granted promotion. It further transpires that the petitioner himself never wanted to compete with other co-workers for being promoted and tried to get himself promoted by back door method impressing upon some authorities to write a letter to other authorities. Such letters, which are relied upon by the petitioner, cannot have any legal effect, specially when the procedure for promotion has been specifically provided. 19. Such letters, which are relied upon by the petitioner, cannot have any legal effect, specially when the procedure for promotion has been specifically provided. 19. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to show that since 1978 he ever filed any application before the higher authorities or before this Court for being promoted, which clearly shows that for more than two decades, the petitioner had himself not taken any step in that regard and for the first time he raised his dispute for promotion in the year 2005 when the qualification for promotion/appointment on Class-III post in the Board was already enhanced to Graduate and hence the said application was rightly rejected by the authorities concerned by the impugned letter dated 16.05.2005 and only thereafter this writ petition was filed. It may be noted that law is not meant for sleepy and indolent persons, rather it is meant for vigilant persons, who take steps well within a suitable time as per the requirements of law. 20. Thus, in the abovementioned specific facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court in case of Y.V. Rangaiah (supra) as well as in case of P. Mahendran (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to this case. 21. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition nor does it find the petitioner entitled to the reliefs claimed by him therein and, accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.