JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the instant writ application, the prayer has been made for quashing of the Dhanbad District Order dated 04.08.2000, vide Annexure-1, and for quashing of the District Order No. 3239 of 1997 with respect to petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been illegally authorized to work as Learner Driver, and further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to restore the services into the District Armed Police Cadre and give him all benefit with retrospective effect, such as pay scale, seniority and promotion etc. 2. The brief facts, as has been averred in the writ application, is that petitioner being a Matriculate was appointed as Constable in District Armed Police on 01.12.1986 and thereafter, the petitioner completed the Armed Police Force training. After completion of the said training, the petitioner joined as District Armed Police in the Reserve Police Line at Hazaribagh. In the year 1992 the petitioner was transferred from Hazaribagh to Chatra District where he performed all the duties of Armed Police. In the month of November 1996 the petitioner was transferred from Chatra to Dhanbad District and performed the duties of Armed Police Reserve. It has been averred that since the petitioner had the knowledge to drive vehicles and due to paucity of regular drivers, the superior authorities orally directed the petitioner for his assistance to drive police vehicles for temporary period. In the month of January 1998, the petitioner was put under deputation at Dhanbad Police Station and was further directed to drive various police vehicles. In the year 2000 in pursuance to wireless message of Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, the petitioner appeared before the duly constituted Board for drive test of police vehicle against his wish. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to drive police vehicles as per the direction of the superior authorities. The petitioner came to know from the reliable sources that he has been taken in Police Driver Cadre (Ordinary Reserves) in the year 2002 but at the relevant time he did not receive any district order in writing. The petitioner immediately raised objection by filing a written representation before the competent authority. The petitioner came to know from the reliable sources that he has been taken in Police Driver Cadre (Ordinary Reserves) in the year 2002 but at the relevant time he did not receive any district order in writing. The petitioner immediately raised objection by filing a written representation before the competent authority. A telephonic message was received from the Officer in-charge of the Baghmara Police Station on 07.07.2010 directing the petitioner to appear before the Board, constituted for promotion from Police-Driver to Driver-Hawaldar and the petitioner having no option had to appear before the said Board with protest. But to the utter surprise, the services of the petitioner has been confirmed in the post of Police-Driver by the district order dated 04.08.2000 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner being aggrieved filed detailed representation before the DIG (Police) Bokaro Range through proper channel seeking permission to approach the High Court for redressal of his grievance, vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 3. During pendency of the writ application, I.A. No.5129 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner, seeking to impugn the Dhanbad District Order No.3239 of 1997 which has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. By the said impugned district order, it has been indicated by the respondents that on the petitioner’s application, he was allowed to work as Learner Driver. The said order, vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit has been brought on record by way of said amendment, which is also impugned in this writ application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the respondents, the petitioner left with no alternative, has been constrained to approach this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of the respondents in converting/confirming the petitioner belonging to General District Armed Police Cadre to Driver Cadre (Ordinary Reserve Police) vide impugned order dated 04.08.2000 is in the teeth of Provisions of the Police Act and the Bihar Police Manual as has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of the respondents in converting/confirming the petitioner belonging to General District Armed Police Cadre to Driver Cadre (Ordinary Reserve Police) vide impugned order dated 04.08.2000 is in the teeth of Provisions of the Police Act and the Bihar Police Manual as has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is a separate cadre of Police Driver and their appointment process is separate and distinct and the respondents are duty bound to give benefits of District Armed Police Cadre for which he is legally entitled and he is also entitled for benefit of District Armed Police Reserve with retrospective effect. Therefore, the action of the respondents amounts to discriminatory, arbitrary exercise of power. 5. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to different chapters of Police Manual, relevant rules of the same are quoted herein below: Rule-609 of the Police Manual: Organisation of the Reserve:- (a) The Armed Police Reserve. (b) The Ordinary Reserve. Rule-610 of the Police Manual: Ordinary Reserve: Maintained to supply guards escorts and driver for police motor vehicles ………… barbers, washerman, hospital cooks, ward servants and sweepers etc. Rule 611 of the Police Manual: District Armed Police This reserve is to be kept intact and up to full strength Training in “Constable Training School” To function under an officer of the rank of Inspector. Rule-614 of the Police Manual: Armed Police Reserve of the Districts to be kept intact. Rule-80 of the Police Manual: Constable: Routine Work of Police Station/Does not come within the meaning of Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station. Rule-142 (f) of the Police Manual: Constable: To record the abstract of Information in the Station Diary/Report about the Crime to Higher Officer/Take all possible steps to effect immediate arrest of accused. Rule-246 of the Police Manual: Constable to be appointed at each Court Office-who shall do the work concerning Court Records, Hajat, Malkhana, etc. Rule-477 of the Police Manual: Deployment of the District Constables at Railway Station Rule 639 of the Police Manual [Hierarchy] Rule 661 (b) of the Police Manual Appointment of Constable: Constables shall be appointed by District Superintendent of Police/List to be prepared by the Selection Board. Rule-477 of the Police Manual: Deployment of the District Constables at Railway Station Rule 639 of the Police Manual [Hierarchy] Rule 661 (b) of the Police Manual Appointment of Constable: Constables shall be appointed by District Superintendent of Police/List to be prepared by the Selection Board. Rule 663 of the Police Manual: Selection of Recruits [Educational Qualification-Matriculate] and [Other Eligibility Criteria] Rule 664 of the Police Manual: Promotion up to Superintendent of Police. Rule 1186 of the Police Manual: Appointment of: (i) Police Driver (ii) Havildar Driver (iii) Reserve Sub-Inspector [Transport] Earlier Hierarchy Assistant Driver/Police Driver/Head Driver 6. During course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to second supplementary affidavit dated 18.07.2017 wherein the decision reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 165 (Ganesh Chandra Jha vs. Steel Authority of India & Ors.) and 1993 (1) PLJR 89 (Ram Ashis Ram vs. Rajendra Agriculture University & Ors.) vide Annexure-6 and 7 wherein it has been held that person cannot be transferred from one cadre to another without his consent, even though initially he may not suffer any financial loss. It has been stated in the said supplementary affidavit that the Police Constable were appointed in the year 1986 along with petitioner have been allowed promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the year 2014. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ex parte selection of the petitioner as temporary driver and thereof confirmation of petitioner into Police Driver (Constable Driver) is not legally permissible. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has also referred to supplementary affidavit dated 23.07.2015 wherein it has been submitted that one Sri Dhananjay Kumar Singh has been converted from Police Driver Cadre to the General Police Cadre, upon his request which has been forwarded to the police headquarter as per the Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination. 8. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 to 5. In the counter affidavit it has been submitted that though petitioner was appointed as constable, preferred an application stating therein that he knew driving and a licence no.125/85 (Palamau), the copy of which was also submitted by him. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 to 5. In the counter affidavit it has been submitted that though petitioner was appointed as constable, preferred an application stating therein that he knew driving and a licence no.125/85 (Palamau), the copy of which was also submitted by him. He further stated in the application that he worked as learner driver at Hazaribagh and Chatra, hence his application was allowed to work as learner driver in Dhanbad District Police Force and accordingly, a D.O No.3239/97 was issued vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner was confirmed as Police Driver and a D.O No.1334/2000 was issued accordingly, vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it has been submitted that as per the Rule 1186(a) of the Police Manual, and Police Order No.182/85, a committee was constituted consisting Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sergeant Major, Dhanbad, Dy. S.P-I and also District Transport Officer, and the said committee conducted an enquiry and verification and the petitioner was confirmed as Police Driver from Learner Driver. As per Rule 1186 (a) of the Police Manual, 25% of the police driver is to be filled up from the post of learner driver in a district and the same learner drivers are to be appointed from Police Constable. Hence, there is a clear cut rule in police manual in Rule 1186(a) that the learner driver is to be taken from constable of a district and the same learner driver is to be promoted as police driver to the extent of 25% of total post of police driver in a district. The police order 182/85, further explains the appointment, promotion and seniority of constable driver. The Police Manual Rule 1186 (a) and police order no. 182/85 has been annexed as Annexure-C and D to the counter affidavit. 9. A supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed in pursuance to order dated 08.01.2018. The police order 182/85, further explains the appointment, promotion and seniority of constable driver. The Police Manual Rule 1186 (a) and police order no. 182/85 has been annexed as Annexure-C and D to the counter affidavit. 9. A supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed in pursuance to order dated 08.01.2018. In the said affidavit it has been submitted that the service record of the petitioner was checked and verified and during the said process it was found that the application which was submitted by the petitioner stating therein that he desired to work as a driver is missing from the file but when the noting part of the said file was examined then it appears that the application which was filed by the petitioner was kept on correspondence part of the file as page 105/106 but both the pages are not on the record as per Annexure-A series. To substantiate, the application filed by the petitioner, he was allowed to work as a driver. Several application given by the similarly situated persons which was also kept in the said record and on the basis of their applications they were allowed to function as a driver, as per Annexure-B series. It is further submitted that from bare perusal of the original file since all the applications with regard to the other persons is available regarding the names mentioned in Annexure-1 to the writ application up to page 104 and thereafter starts from page 107 and the page 105-106 appears to have been snatched from the file. At this stage it is relevant to point out that by snatching both the papers petitioner is very much beneficiary because after expiry of so long period he wants to convert his service as general constable so that he is able to get benefits which has been accorded to the general constable. It has further been submitted that several general constables who were appointed like the petitioner, they have submitted their applications as contained in Annexure-B series and like the petitioner, their services has been absorbed in the cadre of driver in the department. It has been submitted that from perusal of documents enclosed therein it is crystal clear that on the basis of his application, Annexure-A of the counter affidavit has been issued not by the respondents but because of volition of the petitioner to work as driver. 10. It has been submitted that from perusal of documents enclosed therein it is crystal clear that on the basis of his application, Annexure-A of the counter affidavit has been issued not by the respondents but because of volition of the petitioner to work as driver. 10. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit, has strenuously urged that there has been inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to stake his claim for conversion/restoring his position in the District Armed Police Cadre and in this respect, learned counsel for the State has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 (Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu). Learned counsel for the State also submits that the decision as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in supplementary affidavit as Annexure-6 and 7 are not applicable in the instant case. Learned counsel for the State further submits that in the mean time, the petitioner has been granted ACP in the cadre of Driver Constable. 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference, due to the following facts and reasons: (I) Admittedly, though the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the District Armed Police Reserve in the year 1986 but after having appeared in the duly constituted Board for driving test for police vehicle, the petitioner continued to drive the police vehicles and the services of the petitioner has been confirmed in the post of Police Driver vide District Order dated 04.08.2000 vide Annexure-1 to the writ application which is impugned and said order has been challenged in the year 2010 and no satisfactory explanations has been made in the writ application as to why there was undue delay in preferring the writ application. (II) It would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 (Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu) wherein, at paragraph 16 and 17, it has been held as under: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. (II) It would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 (Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu) wherein, at paragraph 16 and 17, it has been held as under: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons — who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” (III) On perusal of the supplementary counter affidavit vide Annexure-A and B series, it appears that the application of the petitioner to work as driver is missing from the file but when the noting part of the said file was is perused it would be crystal clear that on the basis of application made by the petitioner, he has been allowed to work as a driver. Therefore, it would be fallacious on the part of the petitioner to contend that he has been forced to work as a driver out of his own volition. Moreover, similarly situated Constables have been allowed to work as driver because of the applications submitted by them as per Annexure-B series, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be construed that the petitioner has been confirmed as a driver without his consent. In that view of the matter, petitioner is not entitled to the relief as has been sought by him in the writ application. 12. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and as a logical sequitur to the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Resultantly, the writ petition sans merit, is dismissed.