JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions to promote him as Foreman (Pipes and Pumping) from the date persons junior to him were promoted as such with all consequential benefits and also to confer upon him further promotion thereafter, to the post of Special Foreman (Pipes and Pumping) with seniority and all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Junior Fitter in BSL Project in July, 1970. Thereafter in June 1978, he was appointed as Hoist Operator. On 13.10.1993, respondent-Board invited applications from Indian Nationals, who belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Categories for various posts, which included one post of Assistant Foreman (Pipes and Pumping). Petitioner applied for the same and also appeared before the Selection Board and was selected against the said post. However, to his utter surprise, he was offered appointment as Chargeman Grade-I (Pipes and Pumping) vide office order dated 24.01.1994. Feeling aggrieved, he made a representation on 25.11.1994. His further case is that respondent-Board promoted persons junior to him as Foreman, who were appointed as Chargeman Grade-I in the year 1998 and 1999, whereas petitioner was appointed as Chargeman Grade-1 on 24.01.1994. According to him, one Gian Chand, who was promoted/appointed as Chargeman Grade-I vide order dated 11.08.1998 and one Mast Ram, who was appointed as such vide order dated 24.01.1998, were promoted as Foreman (Pipes and Pumping) vide orders dated 11.08.1998 and 12.08.1999, respectively, whereas promotion was arbitrarily denied to the petitioner. According to him, while promoting persons junior to him, his rightful claim was rejected by the respondents, who promoted him on 13.01.2003. In this background, he filed the writ petition praying for reliefs already mentioned hereinabove. 3. The claim of the petitioner stands refuted by the Board on the ground that petitioner was not selected for the post of Assistant Foreman (Pipes & Pumping) pursuant to his applying for the said post vide application dated 28.12.1993 and was alternatively offered the post of Chargeman Grade-I, which he accepted without objection and unconditionally. It is further mentioned in the reply that earlier also, petitioner had filed CWP No. 319 of 1999, titled as Chanan Singh Vs. It is further mentioned in the reply that earlier also, petitioner had filed CWP No. 319 of 1999, titled as Chanan Singh Vs. BBMV and others, in which also, he prayed for setting aside of the order of his appointment as Chargeman Grade-I dated 24.01.1994 and had also prayed that respondents be directed to treat him as appointed against the post of Assistant Fitter Special (Pipes and Pumping) w.e.f. 24.01.1994, which petition was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2003 and an application filed for restoration of the same was also dismissed on 01.08.2007. As per the respondents, Gian Chand, son of Mangat Ram, who was earlier working as Pipe Fitter, was promoted as Chargeman (Pipes and Pumping) vide order dated 11.08.1999 and thereafter as Foreman (Pipes and Pumping) on 12.08.1999, as he was next in seniority to Mast Ram. Mast Ram prior to his promotion, was working as Fitter (Pipes and Pumping) and he was promoted as Chargeman (Pipes and Pumping) on 24.08.1998 and difference between the case of Gian Chand and Mast Ram, as compared to the case of petitioner, was that these persons stood promoted to the post of Chargeman, whereas petitioner was appointed to the post in issue. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 5. Petitioner prays for a mandamus directing the respondent-Board to promote him as Foreman (Pipes and Pumping) from the date when persons junior to him were promoted to the said post with all consequential benefits. The so called seniors, parity qua whom is being claimed by the petitioner, are namely Shri Gian Chand and Shri Mast Ram. According to the petitioner, Gian Chand, who was appointed/promoted as Chargeman Grade-I vide order dated 11.08.1998, stood promoted as Foreman (Pipes and Pumping) vide order dated 12.08.1999. Similarly, Mast Ram, who was appointed as Chargeman Grade-1 vide order dated 24.01.1998, was also promoted as Foreman (Pipes and Pumping) vide order dated 12.08.1999. Said persons according to the petitioners were junior to him and grant of promotion to the said persons and denial of the same to the petitioner was an arbitrary act of the Board. Incidentally, neither Shri Gian Chand nor Shri Mast Ram have been impleaded as party respondents in the petition. 6. Said persons according to the petitioners were junior to him and grant of promotion to the said persons and denial of the same to the petitioner was an arbitrary act of the Board. Incidentally, neither Shri Gian Chand nor Shri Mast Ram have been impleaded as party respondents in the petition. 6. Be that as it may, record demonstrates that though the petitioner did apply for the post of Assistant Foreman (Pipes and Pumping), however, he was not selected by the Selection Board for the post in issue and was in fact offered the post of Chargeman Grade-1, which he accepted without any condition. He was offered this post vide office order dated 24.01.1994 (Annexure P-1). Record further demonstrates that Gian Chand and Mast Ram were promoted against the post of Foreman in the year 1999. 7. It is petitioner’s own case that said two persons were promoted as Foreman (Pipes and Pumping) vide order dated 12.08.1999. It is also a matter of record that the promotions of said two persons were not challenged by the petitioner, when the same were effected. Thereafter, petitioner himself was promoted as Foreman (Pipes and Pumping) in the year 2003. He superannuated as a Special Foreman on 31.03.2008 and till the time he was in service, he did not at any stage, agitate the promotions of Sh. Gian Chand and Mast Ram and it is only after his superannuation that he made a representation to the respondent- Board on 29.01.2009 and present writ petition was filed in the year 2011. 8. There is no cogent explanation given in the petition as to why the promotions of Gian Chand and Mast Ram were not challenged within a reasonable period from the date when said persons were promoted. Even during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any cogent explanation as to why it took more than 12 years for the petitioner to agitate conferment of purported wrong promotions on Mast Ram and Gian Chand and denial of promotion to him. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay is not fatal because the petitioner is not claiming any relief against Mast Ram and Gian Chand has no merit. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay is not fatal because the petitioner is not claiming any relief against Mast Ram and Gian Chand has no merit. It is but natural that after 12 years, the petitioner could not have had made a prayer for setting aside the promotions conferred upon Mast Ram and Gian Chand in the year 1999 and it was a thoughtful ploy to mould the relief in a manner so as to give the impression that the petitioner was not per se challenging the promotions of Mast Ram and Gian Chand, but was claiming parity with the said persons. Thus, the petition is hit by delay and laches, because there is no cogent explanation as to why the petitioner has filed this petition after 12 years from the date when promotions were conferred upon Mast Ram and Gian Chand, who, as already mentioned hereinabove, have not even been impleaded as party respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the source of recruitment to the post of Chargeman of the petitioner on one hand and Mast Ram and Gian Chand on other hand was different. Whereas the petitioner stood “appointed” as Chargeman, Mast Ram and Gian Chand were “promoted” against the said post. It is the case of the respondents that because the recruitment to the post of Chargeman of the petitioner and Gian Chand and Mast Ram was from different sources, Gian Chand and Mast Ram stood promoted as Foreman on account of their being promoted to the post of Chargeman, i.e., the feeder post. The explanation of the respondents is that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Foreman, the entire service as Chargeman and Fitter has to be considered and the joint service of Mast Ram and Gian Chand on the said posts was longer keeping in view that Gian Chand and Mast Ram stood promoted as Chargeman from the post of Fitter, whereas as the petitioner stood appointed as Chargeman from the post of Hoist Operator, service rendered by him as Hoist Operator was not to be counted for the purpose of Foreman. This was for the reason that the post of Hoist Operator is not the feeder cadre post of Foreman (Pipes and Pumping). This was for the reason that the post of Hoist Operator is not the feeder cadre post of Foreman (Pipes and Pumping). On the other hand, experience on the post of Fitter (Pipes and Pumping) has to be considered and counted for the post of Foreman (Pipes and Pumping) being the feeder cadre post. 11. The reason so assigned by the respondents while justifying the promotions conferred upon Mast Ram and Gian Chand is a valid reason, as it demonstrates that Mast Ram and Gian Chand were promoted in terms of the Regulations. There is no challenge to the Regulations of the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the Rule position. This clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was not similarly situated as Mast Ram and Gian Chand. That being so, it cannot be said that the respondent-Board has discriminated between similarly situated persons and the petitioner was denied promotions to the post of Foreman (Pipes and Pumping), whereas persons junior to him were promoted. Therefore also, as there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that Mast Ram and Gian Chand were wrongly promoted as Foreman by ignoring him, this petition is dismissed.