Judgment : R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned single Judge, dated 02.09.2009, passed in W.P(MD)No.8717 of 2009. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal would run thus: 2.1. The case of the appellant is that she was appointed as Junior Scientist in the respondent Board on 20.01.1989 and her services were regularised on 17.11.1991, after her completion of probation. While so, the first respondent published a seniority list of all the employees in his proceedings dated 13.11.1996, wherein it was stated that if anyone was aggrieved, they could apply within sixty days therefrom, for necessary corrections. The appellant sent several representations to the authorities concerned for revision of her seniority, but it evoked no positive response, which led her to move before this Court by way of the writ petition. 2.2. Upon consideration of the materials available, the learned Judge of this Court held that the second respondent rejected the claim of the appellant on 24.07.2000 and also by the subsequent order dated 13.12.2006, it was communicated to the petitioner that the earlier rejection would hold good. The learned Judge further held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, for the reason that the appellant kept quiet for more than 14 years without even challenging the order of seniority and more so, the rejection of her claim by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 24.07.2000, did also remain unchallenged and therefore, the writ petition was rejected by the learned Judge on the ground of laches. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come forward with the present writ appeal. 3. Mr.V.Murugan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Judge was not correct in rejecting the writ petition on the ground of laches and he ought to have considered the merit of the case of the appellant and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the same. In support of the claim of the appellant, he relied on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 445. 4. In support of the claim of the appellant, he relied on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 445. 4. On the contrary, Mr.C.Elaman, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that having allowed to remain unchallenged the order of seniority, the appellant cannot seek for interference, when she failed to question even the order of rejection passed in her representation and hence, the order of the learned Judge warrants no interference and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the writ appeal. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and scrutinised the materials made available before us, including the order of the learned single Judge of this Court. 6. A scrutiny of the materials available before us, would clearly show that the seniority list which is now sought to be challenged, was published on 13.11.1996 and the representations were also called for carrying out any corrections from all the employees. According to the appellant, none of the representations were considered by the authorities concerned and therefore, she filed the writ petition. 7. However, the learned Judge rightly found that one of her representations was considered and rejected by the second respondent on 24.07.2000 and the said rejection was also confirmed by the order dated 13.12.2006 and the appellant having failed to challenge those orders for all these years, is not entitled to claim any right in her favour. 8. Moreover, the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 445, is irrelevant for the reason that the claim of the petitioner therein was rejected when his application for review was pending consideration. Here, in the case on hand, the representations of the appellant were rejected and for the reasons best known to her, she refrained from challenging such rejection of her representations. 9. Hence, we find that the appellant, having kept quiet for a long period, is not vested with any right to challenge the rejection of her representation by filing the writ petition. Also, the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, which, in our view, merits acceptance. 10. In fine, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Also, the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, which, in our view, merits acceptance. 10. In fine, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.