JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State of Tripura and Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 2. The main challenge in this writ petition is the promotion of the respondent No.3 to the post of Headmaster on the basis of seniority list dated 17.09.1998. 3. The claim of the writ petitioner is that his name is found at Sl. No.354 of the final seniority list dated 17.09.1998 and the name of the respondent No.3 is found at Sl. No.358. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner was on 01.01.1959 and he joined in service as Assistant Teacher on 21.01.1985 and his pay scale was given w.e.f. 01.01.1988. The date of birth of the respondent No.3, Sri Surjya Das was on 24.04.1961 and he joined in service on 15.01.1985 and he was given pay scale on the same day as that of the writ petitioner i.e. on 01.01.1988. 5. Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel submits that there is no merit in the petition and more so, it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 6. Before analyzing the factual aspects of the case, it would be proper to mention herein that the promotion of the respondent No.3, Surjya Das was effected in the year 2003, and the writ petitioner has challenged the said promotion in the year 2016 by means of filing the present writ petition before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would contend that the respondent No.3 is senior to the writ petitioner for the reason that the respondent No.3 entered into the service earlier than that of the petitioner. 8. The seniority list dated 17.09.1998 prepared by the Director of School Education, respondent No.2 is not disputed by any of the parties. 9. The writ petitioner has relied upon a communication dated 01.11.2014 issued by the Branch Officer of the Directorate of School Education to the Senior Public Information Officer(SPIO), Directorate of School Education, wherein it is found that the seniority is to be determined with reference to the date of getting pay scale prescribed for Graduate Asstt. Teacher/Hindi Teacher/ Hindi Pracharak and Graduate Headmaster(Primary)/ Junior Basic School. Teacher/Hindi Teacher/ Hindi Pracharak and Graduate Headmaster(Primary)/ Junior Basic School. However, in case of similar date of joining or getting graduate teacher pay scale, the seniority will be considered on the basis of the date of birth. The communication dated 01.11.2014 is reproduced here-in-below, in extenso : “No.F.3(C-27)-SE-E(GL)/2006 Government of Tripura Directorate of School Education Estt.(General) Section Dated, Agartala, the 01-11-2014 To The SPIO Directorate of School Education, Agartala, Tripura. Subject:- Supply of information/documents under RTI Act. Madam, In inviting a reference to your letter No.F.18(1-2652)SE-E(RTI)/14 dated 07.08.2014 on the subject cited above, the information/document are furnished below:- 1. Item No(i):- As regards it may be mentioned here that promotion to the post of Headmaster/ Headmistress, Senior Basic School/Junior High School/ Assistant Headmaster/Headmistress High School/Dy. Inspector of Schools is to be made on the basis of combined seniority list from Graduate Asstt. Teachers/ Classical teachers/Hindi Teachers/Hindi Pracharaks drawing pay scale prescribed for graduate incumbents and Graduate HM(Pry) Junior Basic School. For the purpose the seniority list is to be determined at present with reference to the date of getting pay scale prescribed for Graduate Asstt. Teacher/Hindi teacher/ Hindi Pracharak and Graduate HM(pry)/Junior Basic School. However, in case of simile date of joining/ getting graduate teacher pay scale the seniority will be considered on the basis of the date of birth. (emphasis supplied by this Court) 2. Item No.(ii):- The latest combined final seniority list of Graduate Asstt. Teacher/Hindi teacher/Hindi Pracharak and Graduate HM(pry)/who are enjoying Graduate pay scale covering the period up to 31.12.2003 was published on 14.07.2014 wherein the said seniority list the name of one Radha Kanta Sarkar Maiganga Sukanta HS. School, Teliamura is found available in the SL. No.1719. The name of Surjya Das is not found available. 3. Item NO.(iii):- Due to non-available of the name and service particular of Sri Surjya Das as aforesaid seniority list it is not possible to make confirm about the information as sought for in this item(iii) i.e. who is senior between Radha Kanta Sarkar and Surjya Das. Yours faithfully, Sd- illegible Branch Officer Estt. General Section Directorate of School Education Tripura.” 10. From the combined seniority list, it is found that the petitioner had joined into service on 21.01.1985, whereas the date of joining of the respondent No.3 was on 15.01.1985. The pay scale was allowed to them on the same date i.e. on 01.01.1988. Yours faithfully, Sd- illegible Branch Officer Estt. General Section Directorate of School Education Tripura.” 10. From the combined seniority list, it is found that the petitioner had joined into service on 21.01.1985, whereas the date of joining of the respondent No.3 was on 15.01.1985. The pay scale was allowed to them on the same date i.e. on 01.01.1988. In the communication dated 01.11.2014 it was clearly written that the date of joining or getting graduate teacher pay scale would be the first criteria to determine the seniority. 11. In view of this, the mere fact that the date of birth of the writ petitioner is earlier than that of the respondent No.3 will not come in the way of reckoning seniority between them, and it will be determined on the basis of date of joining. As stated above, the date of joining of the respondent No.3 being on 15.01.1985 is earlier than that of the writ petitioner. As such, I reiterate that respondent No.3 is senior to the writ petitioner. So, the writ petitioner has no right to claim seniority over the respondent No.3. 12. Further, the present writ petition is badly barred by delay and laches, the promotion of respondent No.3 being made in the year 2003 in pursuance of the final seniority list as indicated above, but the said order of promotion has been challenged in the year 2016. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that he submitted representations to the competent authority on various dates, but all went in vain. In my considered view, mere submission of representations to the authority concerned would not justify the belated approach as has been committed by the petitioner. In my considered view, delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind while exercising the discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. vs. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322 in para 10 has observed thus : “10. It has been pointed out by this Court in a number of cases that representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. This was first stated in K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1967 SC 993 ). It has been pointed out by this Court in a number of cases that representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. This was first stated in K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1967 SC 993 ). This was re-iterated in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India ( AIR 1970 SC 470 ) by stating that there is a limit to the time which can be considered reasonable for making representations and if the Government had turned down one representation the making of another representation on similar lines will not explain the delay. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray ( AIR 1976 SC 2617 ) making of repeated representations was not regarded as satisfactory explanation of the delay. In that case the petition had been dismissed for delay alone. (See State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik ( AIR 1976 SC 1639 also).” 13. The Apex Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 471 in paragraphs 19, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28 has observed thus : “19. This Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317 also placed reliance upon its earlier judgment of the Constitution Bench in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84 , wherein it has been observed as under : "33. ………..It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years." 23. In B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, (1998) 2 SCC 523 , this Court while deciding the similar issue reiterated the same view, observing as under :- "7. ……..It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition". (Emphasis added) 25. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition". (Emphasis added) 25. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 , this Court considered the case where the petition was filed after a lapse of 14 years challenging the promotion. However, this Court held that the aggrieved person must approach the Court expeditiously for relief and it is not permissible to put forward stale claim. The Court observed as under :- "2. ………….A person aggrieved by an order promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within 6 months or at the most a year of such promotion." The Court further observed that it was not that there was any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor was it that there could never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after certain length of time. It would be a sound and wise exercise of jurisdiction for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the court to put forward stale claim and try to unsettle settled matters. 26. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Sudama Devi vs. Commissioner, (1983) 2 SCC 1 ; State of U.P. vs. Raj Bahadur Singh, (1998) 8 SCC 685 ; and Northern Indian Glass Industries vs. Jaswant Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 335 . 27. In Dinkar Anna Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 1 SCC 354 , this Court held that delay and laches in challenging the seniority is always fatal, but in case the party satisfies the Court regarding delay, the case may be considered. 28. In K.A. Abdul Majeed vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 292 this Court held that seniority assigned to any employee could not be challenged after a lapse of seven years on the ground that his initial appointment had been irregular, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.” 14. Again the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Again the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal & Anr. vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 179 in paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 has held : “16. We have no trace of doubt that the respondents could have challenged the ad hoc promotion conferred on the junior employee at the relevant time. They chose not to do so for six years and the junior employee held the promotional post for six years till regular promotion took place. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that they had given representations at the relevant time but the same fell in deaf ears. It is interesting to note that when the regular selection took place, they accepted the position solely because the seniority was maintained and, thereafter, they knocked at the doors of the tribunal only in 2003. It is clear as noonday that the cause of action had arisen for assailing the order when the junior employee was promoted on ad hoc basis on 15-11-1983. 17. In C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115 , a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the concept of representations and the directions issued by the court or tribunal to consider the representations and the challenge to the said rejection thereafter. In that context, the Court has expressed thus: (SCC p.123, para 10)- “10. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.” 18. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.” 18. In Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar [ (2010) 2 SCC 59 ], this Court after referring to C. Jacob (supra) has ruled that: (SCC p.66, para 15) “When a belated representation in regard to a “stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead” issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court’s direction. Neither a court’s direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.” 15. It is also equally well neigh principle that a settled position should not be unsettled. I do not find any cogent explanation in the writ petition as to why the petitioner did not approach this Court within a reasonable period of time to ventilate his grievance, if any. The petitioner has preferred to sleep over his rights, and after a lapse of so many years he suddenly woke up for the reasons best known to him. 16. I may gainfully refer the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Akshya Bisoi & Anr. vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 391 wherein their Lordships in para 20 have held as hereunder : “20. 16. I may gainfully refer the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Akshya Bisoi & Anr. vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 391 wherein their Lordships in para 20 have held as hereunder : “20. In holding that an unexpected delay on the part of the petitioners would disentitle them to relief, we place reliance on a judgment of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari. The learned Chief Justice, after adverting to the settled position of law in that regard, observed thus : “27. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled...the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer……. 28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court.” Further, in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment in Dr. Akshya Bisoi(supra) the Apex Court has observed thus : “24. In the present case, the record of the court indicates that while making its recommendations for appointment to the post of Additional Professor, the Selection Committee had borne in mind the performance of the candidates, their records as well as the opinion of the technical experts. The minutes of the meeting of 12 September 2005 indicate that the views of the technical experts were considered. To re-evaluate what took place well over twelve years ago would neither be feasible nor appropriate. The minutes of the meeting of 12 September 2005 indicate that the views of the technical experts were considered. To re-evaluate what took place well over twelve years ago would neither be feasible nor appropriate. The policy decision of 1997 indicates that the gradings given by all the members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts are to be placed before the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the final selection “may be made” on the basis of the gradings/markings given by the members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts. The Selection Committee which was constituted in 2005 considered the issue of selection and inter se ranking of the selected candidates. In making its final recommendation in regard to their order of merit, upon appointment as Additional Professors, the Selection Committee had due regard to relevant matters including the performance of the candidates, their records and the opinion of the experts. Hence, the ranking which has been assigned cannot be regarded as being in breach of the policy decision of 1997. It would be iniquitous to unsettle the position of seniority, over twelve years after the petitioners and the Fourth respondent were selected as Additional Professors. Even thereafter, when each of them has been promoted as a Professor, it is the Fourth respondent who has been ranked higher than the petitioners. 25. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the grant of relief would unsettle the inter se seniority between the petitioners and the fourth respondent well over twelve years since the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment as Additional Professors. This cannot be done. Some expressions of opinion favour of the first petitioner in the departmental processes may have engendered a sense of hope. But that cannot furnish a legal ground to unsettle something that has held the field for long years. We close the proceedings with the expectation that these distinguished doctors will pursue their avocations at AIIMS without rancour. Our decision on seniority is no reflection upon their distinguished service to a premier national institution.” 17. Having regard to the analysis made hereinabove, on settled legal positions, and applying the same principles to the factual matrix, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner has failed to make out a case that he is senior to respondent No.3. Our decision on seniority is no reflection upon their distinguished service to a premier national institution.” 17. Having regard to the analysis made hereinabove, on settled legal positions, and applying the same principles to the factual matrix, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner has failed to make out a case that he is senior to respondent No.3. Apart from that, the promotion being challenged after a lapse of so many years, the present petition is badly barred by doctrine of delay and laches. 18. To invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court should not be oblivious of the well established principle of righteousness, good conscience, justice and equity. A right acquired long back, and settled by passage of time, should not be disturbed. 19. Applying the settled legal positions to the factual matrix, the petitioner has failed to make out a case and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.