Judgment 1. This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order of the second respondent in Ref.No.13270/E3/03, dated 25.01.2005 and consequently, direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sergeant with all backwages from the date on which the third respondent was appointed, within the time limit that may be fixed by this Court. 2. The petitioner was initially selected for appointment to the post of Barber (Basic Servant) on 14.10.1976 and then, he was appointed as Hospital Worker in the year 1994. After regularisation of his service, his name was shown in the seniority list in Serial No.39 over and above the third respondent, who was shown as 51'. The third respondent was appointed as Sergeant Assistant without following seniority and subsequently as Sergeant. 3. The petitioner is challenging the said order of first respondent passed on 25.01.2005 in Ref.No.13270/E3/2003. According to the petitioner, his senior one Subramanian filed W.P.No.1412 of 2005 challenging the very same impugned order. This Court, by the order dated 29.01.2008, disposed of the said writ petition on the ground that the appeal filed by the said Subramanian was pending and directed to dispose the appeal within three weeks. The order of this Court was not complied with. Therefore, the said Subramanian filed a Contempt Petition in C.P.No.417 of 2008. At the time of hearing the Contempt Petition, it was submitted that the Director of Medical Education passed an order in the appeal on 24.10.2008. Therefore, the Contempt Petition was closed. The said Subramanian was relieved from service on 31.12.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, now, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Hospital Worker comes under basic servant and relied on the following Judgments: (i) AIR 1988 SC 1033 [Raghunath Prasad Singh Vs. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others], wherein in paragraph 4, it has been held as follows: "4. Before we part with the appeal, we would like to take notice of another aspect. In course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us, learned counsel for the appellant indicated the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over to the general cadre. Before we part with the appeal, we would like to take notice of another aspect. In course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us, learned counsel for the appellant indicated the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over to the general cadre. He relied upon two or three communications which are a part of the record where it has been indicated that there is no promotional opportunity available in the wireless organisation. Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. We would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organisation within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. In case the State of Bihar fails to comply, with this direction, it should, within two months thereafter, give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the Police wireless organisation to exercise option to revert to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to everyone in the wireless organisation." (ii) C.Kalyanasundaram Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others [W.P.(MD) No.5137 of 2010, dated 27.03.2012], wherein in paragraph 15, it has been held as follows: "15. In the result, the impugned orders dated 24 March, 2010 and 05 February, 2010 are quashed. The third respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar ignoring the undertaking given by him with regard to the preferential claim and seniority below the Promotee Assistants. Such exercise shall be completed, within a period of four months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service. Rules 7 and 10 of the said Rules are as follows: "7. Such exercise shall be completed, within a period of four months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service. Rules 7 and 10 of the said Rules are as follows: "7. Service in a class or category in different Departments, or Offices: (a) Service rendered in a class or category of the service shall count for probation in the said Class or category irrespective of the Department or Office or of the scales of rates of pay applicable. (b) In cases of transfer from one Department to another that is, from the jurisdiction of one appointing authority to another, at the request of the individual, he shall be treated as a transferee to the service and treated as the junior most in the Department to which he is transferred. Provided that the seniority of persons absorbed in other Departments on abolition of posts and retrenchment of staff, due to Government's change in Policies, shall be fixed with reference to the date of their regular appointment in the former Department. 10. Appointment of full members: a) General Rule 31 shall apply separately to the jurisdiction of each appointing authority. b) In the case of Office Assistants in the Office of the Judicial Magistrates, General Rule 31 shall apply separately to each Revenue District. c) The period of service of the absorbed personnel as Office Assistants in the National Employment Department under the Government of India up to the 1st November 1956, shall count for the purpose of confirmation to the extent to which they would have counted, if they would have continued in service under the Government of India. d) The periods of service of the staff, who were absorbed from the Government of India in the Industries Department, consequent on the transfer of control over the Industrial Training Institutes/Centres from the Government of India to the Industries Department, prior to the 1st November 1956, shall count for purpose of confirmation to the extent to which they would have counted, if they would have continued in service under the Government of India." 6. The second respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The second respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Further, as per the order of the first respondent, the petitioner was transferred to Police Dispensary, Manimutharu, on 18.11.1994. Subsequently, on his request, he was transferred to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli from Police Dispensary, Manimuthar, Tirunelveli and he joined duty on 16.10.2000. The petitioner agreed to be placed as junior most on his transfer. On that condition, he was transferred from Director of Medical Service to Director of Medical Education. A circular has been issued by the Dean, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, on 07.09.2004 calling for the willingness from the basic servants in the Hospital to look after the duties of the post of Sergeant, whenever the Sergeant proceeds on leave and the petitioner submitted a letter indicating his unwillingness. As per the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 23.08.2000, S.Azhagaiah was considered as junior most in the new station. Hence, the petitioner was not considered for promotion as Sergeant and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner was posted at Manimuthar on 18.11.1994. Subsequently, on his request, he was transferred to Tirunelveli Medical College Hosptial, Tirunelveli, on 16.10.2000. The petitioner was agreed to be placed as junior most on his transfer. On that condition only, he was transferred from the Director of Medical Service to Director of Medical Education. The date of birth of the petitioner is 13.11.1955 and he will be retired in five or six months. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the arguments put forth by them and perused the materials on record. 9. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order passed in the year 2005 only in the year 2009. The reason given by the petitioner for not approaching this Court at the earliest is not acceptable and is not valid. 10. The Judgment reported in AIR 1988 SC 1033 [supra] relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The reason given by the petitioner for not approaching this Court at the earliest is not acceptable and is not valid. 10. The Judgment reported in AIR 1988 SC 1033 [supra] relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, there is no avenue of promotion in wireless Organisation in Bihar Police Department. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the said circumstances, gave a direction to Bihar Government to create at least two promotional opportunity in wireless Organisation. In the present case, there is promotional opportunity. The petitioner is seeking promotion in the place of the third respondent. 11. The Orders dated 27.03.2012 and 24.02.2014, made in W.P.(MD)Nos.5137 of 2010 and 956 of 2012 respectively are not applicable to the facts of the petitioner's case. Even according to the petitioner, originally, the third respondent was appointed as Sergeant Assistant. The petitioner did not challenge the same. When willingness was sought for from the petitioner and others to work as Sergeant in the leave place, the petitioner expressed his unwillingness. For the above said reason, the ratio laid down in the Judgment do not advance the case of the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Special Rules 7 and 10 for Tamil Nadu Basic Service. Rule 10 has no relevance the issue raised in question. As per Rule 7(b), when an employee is transferred from one Department to another Department at his request, he shall be treated as Junior most in the Department, to which he is transferred. 13. Further, at his request, he was transferred to Director of Medical Education and he was placed as Junior most on his transfer. 14. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.