Judgment :- Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This Mandamus Appeal is directed against the judgment and/or order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 18th September, 2012 in W P No.1447 of 2010 at the instance of the writ petitioner/appellant. By the impugned order, the writ petition was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the writ petitioner in moving the writ petition before this Court. However, considering the chequered history of this litigation, the merit of the writ petition was also considered by the learned Single Judge, who ultimately held that the writ petition also deserved no merit for consideration. The legality and/or propriety of the said order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18th September, 2012 is under challenge in this appeal. As a matter of fact, the instant writ petition was filed by the appellant in 2010 challenging the legality of the promotion given to Ram Chander, private respondent no.6 herein, to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 11th May, 2001. According to the writ petitioner, such promotion was given to the private respondent no.6 in total disregard of the guidelines laid down by the Division Bench of this Court on 13th December, 2000 in Mandamus Appeal, being MAT No.12 of 2000, for recruitment to the promotional post in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, in its different branches. Such guidelines were framed by the Division Bench of this Court, as at the relevant time, there was no statutory rules governing the field of recruitment in such promotional post. The private respondent herein was party to the said proceeding and as such the decision passed in the said Mandamus Appeal is binding upon the Administration and others who were parties to the said proceeding. Before entering into the merit of the writ petition, this Court feels that for convenience of understanding of the issue involved in this writ petition, background of the case, in brief, is required to be kept on record as both the writ petitioner and the private respondent no.6 involved themselves in several litigations making their rival claims with regard to their placement in the seniority list and/or the legality of their promotion in the promotional post. The Municipal Council at Port Blair has different branches in its Engineering Department; such as Electrical, Mechanical and Automobile Engineering, consisting of different cadres in each of such branches. However, a combined seniority list is maintained for all the employees in the same cadre in all such branches in its Engineering Department. Despite suggestion and/or recommendation was given by this Court on 25th November, 2010, while disposing of a writ petition being WP No.335 of 2007, for preparing separate seniority list for different cadre if possible, but no step has yet been taken by the Municipal Council for implementing the said suggestion and/or recommendation of this Court. Be that as it may, the petitioner herein was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Mechanical Branch) by the Municipal Council on 1 st November, 1989. Subsequently, he was placed in the post of Assistant Engineer (E&M) on 23rd April, 1999 on adhoc basis. The service of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Engineer (E&M) was regularised by the Council on 18th February, 2004 with retrospective effect from the date of his initial placement in the post of Assistant Engineer (E&M) on adhoc basis. The service of the petitioner in the promotional post which was regularised by the Council with retrospective effect from 23rd April, 1999, was confirmed by the Council in its meeting held on 15th March, 2004 and 23rd April, 2004. His promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (E&M), remains unchallenged from any quarter. At the time when the writ petitioner was in service under the Municipal Council as Junior Engineer in its Mechanical Branch, the private respondent No.6 was rendering his service in the said Municipal Council as Mazdoor under the direct control of writ petitioner. The private respondent no.6 was subsequently promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 4th December, 1992, on adhoc basis. His adhoc appointment in the promotional post as Junior Engineer (Electrical) which was given to him on 4th December,1992 was regularised with effect from 1.1.1994 vide Council’s Order No.2603 dated 31.12.1993. Problem started when subsequently the private respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the Municipal Council. Grant of such promotion to the said private respondent was challenged by another aspirant for such promotion, before this Court, by filing a writ petition. Problem started when subsequently the private respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the Municipal Council. Grant of such promotion to the said private respondent was challenged by another aspirant for such promotion, before this Court, by filing a writ petition. An interim order was passed in the said writ petition for keeping such promotional order in abeyance. Being aggrieved by such interim order passed in the writ petition, a mandamus appeal was filed by the private respondent. The said appeal was registered as MAT No.12 of 2000. Thus the first round of litigation started with the said cause of action. However, ultimately, the said problem was solved by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court while disposing of the appeal being MAT No.12 of 2000 (Shri Ram Chander –vs- The Lieutenant Governor and others) on 13th December, 2000. In course of hearing of the said appeal, Their Lordships were informed that there was no statutory recruitment rules operating in the field of recruitment in the promotional post of Assistant Engineer, at the relevant time. Their Lordhsips were further informed that, though a rule was framed, but, the same was not notified. The non-notified recruitment rules provide the following provisions regarding promotion: “PROMOTION:- From amongst Junior Engineer of Municipal Council possessing degree in Electrical/Mechanical/Automobile Engineering with 5 years regular service or Diploma in Electrical/Mechanical/ Automobile Engineering with 8 years regular service.” Since the said rule was not notified at the relevant time, the Appeal Court was of the view that the recruitment in the promotional post of the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) cannot be made by following the said rule. Under such a situation, the Appeal Court laid down the guidelines for recruitment to the said promotional post. The Appeal Court directed the Municipal Council to consider all eligible Junior Engineers (Electrical) only on the criteria for promotion as embodied in Clause 11 of the said recruitment rule. Thus, the eligible candidates in the feeder cadres in the other branches of its Engineering Department, namely; Mechanical and Automobile Engineer, were excluded from the zone of consideration for the said promotional post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Their Lordships held that it would be ridicule, if the Junior Engineers in the feeder post from other branches such as Mechanical and Automobile Engineering are promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Department. Their Lordships held that it would be ridicule, if the Junior Engineers in the feeder post from other branches such as Mechanical and Automobile Engineering are promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Department. The Municipal authority was, thus, directed to complete the selection process for recruitment in the said promotional post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of the said order. Pursuant to the said direction passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the said Mandamus Appeal, the Municipal Council took up the process for filling up the said promotion post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) afresh and, ultimately, selected Shri Ram Chander, private respondent no.6 herein, for the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as the Municipal Council found that one of his other competitors namely; Unamananda Roy had already been promoted as Assistant Engineer and the other one namely; Shri Sanat Chakraborty could not be considered for such promotion as he was in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Mechanical). As such they were excluded from the zone of consideration and Shri Ramchander was selected as he had been working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) continuously for eight years four months including the period of his service in the said post on adhoc basis. The other competitor of the private respondent no.6, namely; Shri Ravi, Junior Engineer (Electrical) was also excluded from such competition as he did not complete required length of eight years of service in the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). The private respondent was, thus, ultimately, selected for the promotional post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) vide the Municipal Council’s order No.1402 dated 11th May, 2001, by counting the period of his experience in the feeder post from the date of his adhoc appointment in the feeder post. Thus, though this problem of recruitment to the said promotional post was set at rest temporarily by recruiting the private respondent as Assistant Engineer (Electrical), but his appointment in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) gave rise to another dispute concerning the placement of the writ petitioner and the private respondent in the combined seniority list published by the Municipal Council. Though the private respondent was appointed in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 11th May,2001,but,he was placed below the writ petitioner in the seniority list even though the writ petitioner was appointed in the post of Assistant Engineer (E&M) on regular basis on 18th February, 2004. In fact, the writ petitioner was placed above the private respondent no.6 in the combined seniority list as his service period on adhoc basis with effect from 23rd April, 1999, was counted for assessing the length of his service in the promotional post. To resolve the aforesaid dispute, another writ petition was filed by the private respondent No.6 before this Court and the said writ petition was ultimately decided in favour of the private respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. The said appeal,which was numbered as MAT No.067 of 2010, was ultimately disposed of on 16th March, 2011 by affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge passed in the said writ petition. The Appeal Court held that the appellant therein viz the writ petitioner herein, was not entitled to get the benefit of seniority from the date of his initial appointment in the promotional post on adhoc basis as his appointment in the promotional post on adhoc basis was not given by following the statutory recruitment rules. The Division Bench further made it clear that at best the writ petitioner can get the benefit of his seniority from the date of regularisation of his service in the promotional post. Thus, the dispute regarding their placement in the seniority list was resolved in the said appeal and as a result of implementation of the said order of the Appeal Court, the writ petitioner became junior to the private respondent in the seniority list. This gives rise to another round of litigation as the present writ petitioner filed another writ petition for challenging the legality of the appointment of private respondent no.6, namely; Shri Ram Chander in the promotional post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on the ground that he, having failed to fulfil the eligibility criteria for such promotion, ought not to have been selected for such promotional post in the Municipal Council. It was contended by the writ petitioner that the length of period of his service on adhoc basis ought not to have been taken into consideration for assessing his experience in the feeder post as the extant recruitment rules provide that diploma holder having eight years experience in regular service in the cadre post are eligible for consideration for such promotional post. Both the writ petitioner and the private respondent No.6 are diploma holder and as such eight years working experience in the feeder post is necessary for acquiring eligibility for consideration for the next promotional post. It was contended by the petitioner that if the experience of the private respondent in his regular service in the feeder post is taken into consideration, then he completed 6 ½ years of regular service in the feeder post at the relevant time. It was further contended by the petitioner that when the other candidate namely; Shri Ravi was excluded from the selection process because of his failure to complete required length of eight years of service in the feeder post, the private respondent namely; Ram Chander ought not to have been selected for appointment in the promotional post when he also failed to complete the required length of regular service of eight years in the feeder post. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on 18th September, 2012 primarily on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the writ petitioner in approaching this Court after a long delay of nine years without proper explanation. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471 , the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner being a fence-sitter cannot be allowed to challenge the order passed by the Municipal Council on 11th May, 2001, giving appointment to the private respondent in the promotional post, after a long delay of nine years. His Lordship further held that since during the interregnum period several litigations were filed and/or disposed of, determining the rights of the parties concerning their appointment and/or their placement in the seniority list which ultimately ended in appeal before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner herein as grant of such relief to the petitioner at this stage will not only destroy the effect of the orders passed in appeal by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court earlier which, not only attained finality, but also have been acted upon by the parties, but at the same time will create administrative problem in the Municipal Council. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The legality and/or propriety of the said order of the learned Single Judge passed in the said writ petition is under scrutiny before this Court in this appeal. We have considered every pros and cons of the materials on record including the judgement appealed against very carefully, but we do not find any justification to upset such a well reasoned decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court as the petitioner has failed to cross the hurdle of maintainability of the writ petition, because of such long delay on the part of the writ petitioner in approaching the court for such relief. In this regard, we may rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.R.Mudgal and Others vs. R.P.Singh and others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 531 wherein it was held that the satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by the writ petitions filed after several years. It was further held therein that it was essential that anyone who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the court as early as possible as otherwise in addition to the creation of sense of insecurity in the minds of the government servants there would also be administrative complications and difficulties. The Hon’ble Apex Court then ultimately held that this kind of fruitless and harmful litigation should be discouraged. The Hon’ble Apex Court then ultimately held that this kind of fruitless and harmful litigation should be discouraged. Though we find that the private respondent was lacking 1 ½ years of service experience at the relevant time and his selection to the said promotional post in 2001 was known to the writ petitioner, but still then, he did not come forward to challenge the legality of the appointment of the private respondent in the promotional post till 2010. As such this Court cannot now give the relief which the petitioner has claimed in the writ petition, even though we find that the appointment of the private respondent in the promotional post was given in violation of the selection guidelines fixed by the Appeal Court in the Mandamus Appeal being MAT No.12 of 2000, as grant of such relief to the writ petitioner at such a later stage will, not only create sense of insecurity in the minds of the government servant, but also will create administrative complications in the Municipal Council. That apart we hold that the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in coming to the conclusion that if any relief as prayed for, is granted to the writ petitioner after such a long delay, the effect of the decision of the Appeal Courts in several litigations between the parties during the interregnum period, will be upset creating topsy-turvy in recruitment process so far held by the Municipal Council for the said promotional post as well as in their placement in the seniority list. Before parting with we record that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and another vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2013) 2 SCC 526 cited by Mr.Gopala Binnu Kumar cannot help the petitioner in the instant case presently for the following reasons:- That was a case where the Hon’ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider as to whether the appointees who were recruited in violation of the statutory rules should be treated separately from those who were appointed by following the recruitment rules. It was held therein that any appointment dehors the rules would be illegal and such appointees should be put in different class and cannot claim seniority even then their appointment is later regularised. It was held therein that any appointment dehors the rules would be illegal and such appointees should be put in different class and cannot claim seniority even then their appointment is later regularised. Dispute regarding placement of the writ petitioner and the private respondent in the seniority list has already been resolved in the earlier litigation between them which was concluded in appeal before this Court and as such, the said dispute cannot be reopen at this stage in this proceedings where the subject matter of dispute is completely different and unrelated to the dispute relating to their placement in their seniority list. As such we are of the view that the decision of the Apex Court cited by the Mr.Gopala Binnu Kumar cannot come to the petitioner’s rescue presently in the facts of the instant case. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge did not commit any illegality in rejecting the said writ petition. We, thus, approve the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the said writ petition, but at the same time we feel the cause of anxiety of the Appellant/writ petitioner as the private respondent viz Ram Chander who worked under the control of the Appellant/writ petitioner, as Mazdoor and was all throughout junior to the Appellant/writ petitioner in service in each cadre, will now be placed above the Appellant/writ petitioner in the seniority list. We are also informed that the next promotional post i.e. Executive Engineer (E&M) is a combined post, which can be filled up by promotion from both the feeder post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). Thus both the writ petitioner and the private respondent may be found subsequently eligible for consideration for such promotion for the next promotional post, when occasion will so arise for filling up such next promotional post, but considering their placement in the seniority list in the feeder post, the writ petitioner is likely to be excluded from the race. Thus both the writ petitioner and the private respondent may be found subsequently eligible for consideration for such promotion for the next promotional post, when occasion will so arise for filling up such next promotional post, but considering their placement in the seniority list in the feeder post, the writ petitioner is likely to be excluded from the race. In case such a situation arises in future, the authority concerned, in our view, should follow the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and Another –vs- State of Assam and others (supra)by treating the private respondent, Ram Chander separately belonging to a class different from the writ petitioner/appellant as we have no hesitation to hold that promotion was not given to the private respondent to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by following the guidelines laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as mentioned above, while no dispute was ever raised with regard to the promotion given to the writ petitioner/appellant to the present post, so that the writ petitioner does not lose the race in the competition for the next promotional post on the ground of his position in the seniority list only, despite he has acquired much more experience in the combined cadre post than Ram Chander. We make it clear that the above observation is made by us only as a future guideline for filling up the next promotional post whenever occasion will so arise, without disturbing the irregular promotion granted to Ram Chander, the private respondent no.6 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The appeal, thus, stands disposed. Subal Baidya, J. I agree.