JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the first respondent, dated 23.03.2010 whereby, their claim for promotion to the post of Assistants was rejected by saying that such claim of the petitioners were already rejected by the Government as early as in the year 1987. 2. The case of the petitioners is that all of them were appointed as Junior Assistants on different dates and their services were subsequently regularized with effect from 25.06.1984 by passing the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.996, Personnel and Administrative (Placement) Reforms Department, dated 22.09.1984. Thereafter, they passed the relevant Departmental Tests so as to make them eligible to the post of Assistants and accordingly, as on 31.12.1986 all the petitioners were fully qualified to the post of Assistants by way of promotion. However, the petitioners were not considered for promotion. In fact, by a letter dated Nil, in the month of February-2007, issued by the Assistant Director of Department of Employment and Training, called for a list of candidates for promotion including the persons, who were regularized as on 25.0.1984 in G.O.Ms.No.996, Personnel and Administrative (Placement) Reforms Department, dated 22.09.1984. Thereafter, the petitioners were promoted temporarily on 26.03.1986 and subsequently, reverted to the post of Junior Assistants in the year 1989 itself. It is stated that they made repeated representations to the respondents to consider their case for promotion to the post of Assistants. As it was not considered, the present writ petition is field. 3. It appears from the fact placed before this Court that the petitioners' claim was rejected as early as in the year 1987 itself by specifically excluding their names, while considering the persons for promotion to the post of Assistants through proceedings dated 29.07.1987. The petitioners have not chosen to challenge the said proceedings. Again they were promoted as Assistants only temporarily on 26.03.1987 and after two years, they were reverted to the post of Junior Assistants in the year 1989. Such proceedings were also not challenged by the petitioners. When the first respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioners for promotion in the impugned order, dated 23.03.2010 by saying that the claim of the petitioners were already rejected as early as in the year 1987, the petitioners sought to challenge the same in this writ petition. Such proceedings were also not challenged by the petitioners. When the first respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioners for promotion in the impugned order, dated 23.03.2010 by saying that the claim of the petitioners were already rejected as early as in the year 1987, the petitioners sought to challenge the same in this writ petition. In my considered view, the petitioners have left the matter without challenging the denial of promotion in the year 1987 and order of reversion made in the year 1989. Now, after more than a period of 23 years the petitioners approached this Court in the year 2010, by way of filing this writ petition. Certainly such conduct of the petitioners in not challenging the relevant proceedings for more than 23 years, especially, when their claim was rejected as early as in the year 1987 and 1989, would amount to delay and laches. On that ground, I am unable to go into the contention of the petitioners on merits and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.