JUDGMENT : Main prayer in this batch of writ petitions is for grant of promotion in Middle Management Grade Scale-II from Junior Management Grade Scale-I. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioners have raised a plea that promotion granted in Middle Management Grade Scale-II (hereinafter referred to as MMGSII) was not in terms of Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998. It is contended that once the petitioners qualified the written examination and obtained minimum qualifying marks, they cannot be denied promotion by preparing a merit-list based on aggregate of marks obtained in the written examination, interview and performance appraisal. Mr. Afaque Ahmad, the learned counsel appearing in W.P.(S) No.6235 of 2014 has referred to decisions in "B.V. Sivaiah & Others Vs. K. Addanki Babu & Ors." reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720 and "Harigovind Yadav Vs. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank & Ors." reported in (2006) 6 SCC 145 , to fortify the contention that once a candidate has secured benchmark, his seniority alone can be considered for promotion. Referring to paragraph no.36 of the judgment in "Ghanshyam Pathak Vs. Santhal Pargana Gramin Bank, Dumka" reported in (2014) 2 JCR 662 , it is contended that once it is held by the Division Bench that the respondents did not carry the promotion exercise following seniority-cum-merit rule, the whole exercise pursuant to notice dated 25.10.2004 must be held illegal and the petitioners shall be accorded similar benefit which has been granted to the petitioners in W.P.(S) no. 265 of 2005 and batch cases. 4. Seriously opposing the writ petition, Mr. Nipun Bakshi, the learned counsel for the respondent-bank raises a plea of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. It is contended that the decision in "Ghanshyam Pathak" case has not expressly extended similar benefit to other similarly situated employees. The learned counsel has relied on the decision in "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs Ghanshyam Dass (2) and Ors. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 374 and "U.P. Jal Nigam and Another Vs. Jaswant Singh and Another" reported in (2006) 11 SCC 464 , to contend that the petitioners cannot be granted promotion on the basis of decision in "Ghanshyam" case. 5. The Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 lay down the criteria and procedure for promotion from JMGSI to MMGSII. The promotion is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. 5. The Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 lay down the criteria and procedure for promotion from JMGSI to MMGSII. The promotion is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Rule 2(j) provides that a written test for 60 marks shall be conducted and 20 marks is allotted for interview and 20 marks for performance appraisal. The rules prescribe that the candidates who secure 40% in each part of the written test shall be eligible. There is no dispute that all the petitioners have secured the minimum qualifying marks. Juniors to them in the merit-list have been promoted, has also been admitted by the respondent-bank. By a detailed order, the Division Bench in "Ghanshyam Pathak" held that; 36...."the exercise of promotion to the next higher scale have not been carried out in accordance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit laid down under 3rd Schedule of the Rules of 1998 by the respondent Banks and the respective petitioners in each of the individual writ petitions being interse senior to the other promoted respective candidates, and also having undisputedly qualified in the selection process, deserve to be granted promotion from the due dates on which the persons junior to them have been granted promotion by the impugned orders in the individual writ petitions....." 6. From a bare reading of the aforesaid paragraph, one gets an impression that the decision in "Ghanshyam Pathak" has been confined to the petitioners before the Court. It is a well-settled proposition that the persons who slept over their rights, by afflux of time loose their right to enforce such rights. In "Jagdish Lal Vs. State of Haryana" reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538 , it has been observed: It is not necessary to reiterate all the catena of precedence in this behalf. Suffice is to state that the appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wakeup when they have the impetus from "Virpal Chauhan and Ajit Singh case" ratios. 7. The writ petitions which have been disposed of by a common judgment in "Ghanshyam Pathak" were not filed in representative capacity. No rule or order of general application was under challenge. From paragraph no.36 of the judgment it does not appear that the Court granted a declaratory relief rather, it has confined the relief to each individual writ petitioners. 7. The writ petitions which have been disposed of by a common judgment in "Ghanshyam Pathak" were not filed in representative capacity. No rule or order of general application was under challenge. From paragraph no.36 of the judgment it does not appear that the Court granted a declaratory relief rather, it has confined the relief to each individual writ petitioners. There was no direction by the Division Bench to the respondent-bank to grant similar relief to other similarly situated JMGSI who had also participated in the same selection exercise. In "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited", the Supreme Court has indicated the circumstances in which a similar relief can be extended to other similarly situated persons: (a) where the order is made in a petition filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all similarly situated employees; (b) where the relief granted by the court is a declaratory relief which is intended to apply to all employees in a particular category, irrespective of whether they are parties to the litigation or not; (c) Where an order or rule of general application to employees is quashed without any condition or reservation that the relief is restricted to the petitioners before the Court; and (d) where the court expressly directs that the relief granted should be extended to those who have not approached the court. 8. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions fall under two categories. Petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 6235 of 2014, W.P.(S) No. 5353 of 2015 and W.P.(S) No.4423 of 2015 have not been granted promotion and they all have superannuated from service. Judgment in "Ghanshyam Pathak" was rendered on 23.01.2014 and except, petitioner in W.P.(S) No.6235 of 2014 who superannuated from service on 31.03.2014, others superannuated before the judgment in "Ghanshyam Pathak". Petitioners in the remaining writ petitions have been granted promotion in the subsequent promotion exercise. Plea raised on behalf of the respondent-bank is that they never raised any objection to denial of promotion in the previous selection exercise and participated in the subsequent promotional exercises. In short, after these petitioners have accepted promotion, on the basis of the judgment in "Ghanshyam Pathak" they cannot be permitted to lay a challenge to denial of promotion to them in the previous exercise which had commenced with notice dated 25.10.2004. 9. Admittedly, on denial of promotion in MMGSII, the petitioners did not approach the Court. In short, after these petitioners have accepted promotion, on the basis of the judgment in "Ghanshyam Pathak" they cannot be permitted to lay a challenge to denial of promotion to them in the previous exercise which had commenced with notice dated 25.10.2004. 9. Admittedly, on denial of promotion in MMGSII, the petitioners did not approach the Court. The order granting promotion to their juniors is not under challenge. The petitioners have rightly been described as "fence sitters". Only after a decision in "Ghanshyam Pathak" came, by which some of the officers in JMGSI were granted pay-scale of MMGSII from the date their juniors were promoted, the petitioners rose from the slumber and rushed to this Court. Not only interference with the promotions already granted would cause chaos in the hierarchy, rights which by afflux of time have concretized would also be reopened, if these writ petitions are entertained. 10. In the aforesaid facts, finding no merit in the writ petitions, these are dismissed.