JUDGMENT 1. The dispute raised in this petition pertains to the seniority of Inspectors of Excise and Commercial Taxes Department as reflected in the final seniority list issued by the respondent No.1 vide Govt. Order No.159-F of 2012 dated 04.06.2012. By virtue of the aforesaid Govt. Order, the respondents have settled the seniority of Inspectors in the Excise and Commercial Taxes Department as it stood on 31.03.2002. The challenge to the seniority list is premised on the plea that the seniority of Inspectors appointed by way of direct recruitment could not have been framed/determined otherwise than on the basis of inter-se merit of the candidates in the selection preceding the appointments. Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1956) has been invoked to strengthen the plea. 2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the petitioners in the petition are that, the petitioners as also the private respondents came to be selected as Inspectors by the J&K Service Selection Board after following the due process of selection which commenced with the issuance of Advertisement Notification. 27 candidates were selected in the general category, 10 in RBA category, 05 in ST category, 04 in SC category, 01 in OBC category and 02 in ALC category. The petitioner No.1 claimably had applied under the ALC category, the petitioner No.2 under SC category and petitioner No.3 under OBC category and they were, thus, selected in their respective categories. Further case of the petitioners is that they were entitled to be assigned the serial numbers in the order of appointment, according to the merit secured in the selection process conducted by the J&K Service Selection Board, but, the respondent No.1 acting contrary to the spirit of Rule 24 of Rules of 1956 issued Govt. Order No.68-F of 2002 dated 12.04.2002 whereby all the selectees including the petitioners and private respondents were appointed in the order of merit determined by the J&K Service Selection Board, but, category-wise. Though in the orders of appointment of the petitioners and the private respondents selected under different reserved categories, the serial number was assigned not on the basis of the merit of the candidates in the selection, but, as per the serial numbers indicated in the selection list forwarded by the J&K Service Selection Board. Though in the orders of appointment of the petitioners and the private respondents selected under different reserved categories, the serial number was assigned not on the basis of the merit of the candidates in the selection, but, as per the serial numbers indicated in the selection list forwarded by the J&K Service Selection Board. It is contended that the tentative seniority list was not finalized for petty long time and it was only in the year of 2012, the respondent No.1 vide Order No. 159-F of 2012 dated 04.06.2012 issued the final seniority list of the Inspectors as it stood on 31.03.2002. It may also be noticed that this Court at the motion hearing stage while issuing notice to the respondents has specifically observed that the issue of delay and laches shall be considered by the Court after the objections are filed by the respondents. 3. The pith and substance of the case set up by the petitioners is that the seniority of the candidates selected in different reserved categories ought to be prepared on the basis of the merit obtained by the candidates in the selection preceding the appointments. However, the respondents acting in ignorance of the provisions of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1956 have assigned the position to the petitioners and the private respondents in the manner it has been done by the Service Selection Board while issuing the select list pertaining to different categories. 4. Despite having availed of several opportunities, the respondents have not filed their objections. Keeping in view that the facts averred in the petition are not in dispute and the legal position on the point is well settled, this Court heard learned counsel for the parties for admission without insisting for objections from the respondents. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that this petition challenging the final seniority list issued by the respondents on 04.06.2012 is badly hit by the delay and laches. As per own showing of the petitioners, the petitioners along with private respondents and others were appointed as Inspectors in Excise and Sales Tax Departments (now Commercial Taxes Department) by way of direct recruitment vide Govt. Order No.68-F of 2002 dated 12.04.2002 and the first final seniority list of Inspectors as it stood on 31.03.2002 was issued by the respondents vide Govt. Order No.68-F of 2002 dated 12.04.2002 and the first final seniority list of Inspectors as it stood on 31.03.2002 was issued by the respondents vide Govt. Order No.24-F of 2003 dated 10.02.2003 in which, as per the petitioners, they were not assigned the correct position on the basis of their merit in the selection vis--vis private respondents selected in different reserved categories. Admittedly and also that there is no contrary material on record, the petitioners never challenged the aforesaid seniority list. The final seniority list issued on 10.02.2003 has remained in operation ever since it was issued. It was never objected to by the petitioners at any point of time. Vide impugned Govt. Order issued on 04.06.2012, the final seniority list issued in the year 2003 was only updated and the appointments of Inspectors made subsequent to 31.03.2002 were accommodated. Even this final seniority list issued on 04.06.2012 was not assailed by the petitioners for almost six years. The review of impugned seniority list appears to have been sought by the petitioners on 31.01.2018, and, obviously in a run up to the filing of the instant petition. There is no representation placed on record by the petitioners or even claimed to have been filed by the petitioners either to the final seniority list issued on 10.02.2003 or subsequent updated final seniority list issued on 04.06.2012. 6. Viewed from any angle writ petition is badly hit by gross delay and laches. No material worth the name has been placed on record to explain the aforesaid delay. The question of entertaining the writ petition, throwing challenge to the seniority at belated stage has been subject matter of consideration in several judgments of the Honble Supreme Court. Without burdening this judgment with the citations, it would be appropriate to make reference to the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiba Shanker Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471 . The Honble Supreme Court after briefly surveying case law on the point in paragraph Nos.16 to 24 held thus:- '16. The question of entertaining the petition disputing the long standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar & Ors.v. State of Maharashtra &Ors. The Honble Supreme Court after briefly surveying case law on the point in paragraph Nos.16 to 24 held thus:- '16. The question of entertaining the petition disputing the long standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar & Ors.v. State of Maharashtra &Ors. AIR 1974 SC 259 , considered the effect of delay in challenging the promotion and seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause of complaint. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, particularly in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 , wherein it has been observed that the principle, on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay, is that the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in filing the writ petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for delay. The Court further observed as under:- "A party claiming fundamental rights must move the Court before others' rights come out into existence. The action of the Courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of person moving the court." 17. This Court also placed reliance upon its earlier judgment of the Constitution Bench in R.N. Bose v. Union of India &Ors. AIR 1970 SC 470 , wherein it has been observed as under:- "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 defeated after the number of years." 18. In R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon&Ors. AIR 1982 SC 101 , this Court considered all aspects of limitation, delay and laches in filing the writ petition in respect of inter se seniority of the employees. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh &Anr. v. BhailalBhai etc. In R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon&Ors. AIR 1982 SC 101 , this Court considered all aspects of limitation, delay and laches in filing the writ petition in respect of inter se seniority of the employees. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh &Anr. v. BhailalBhai etc. etc., AIR 1964 SC 1006 , wherein it has been observed that the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a Civil Court must be brought, may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution can be measured. The Court observed as under:- "We must administer justice in accordance with law and principle of equity, justice and good conscience. 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 The petitioners have not furnished any valid explanation whatever for the inordinate delay on their part in approaching the Court with the challenge against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968... We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 2, 1968 ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition, in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government resolution, should have been dismissed." (Emphasis added) 19. The issue of challenging the seniority list, which continued to be in existence for a long time, was again considered by this Court in K.R. Mudgal&Ors. v. R.P. Singh &Ors. AIR 1986 SC 2086 . The Court held as under:- "A government servant who is appointed to any post ordinarily should at least after a period of 3-4 years of his appointment be allowed to attend to the duties attached to his post peacefully and without any sense of insecurity Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there shall be no sense of uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by writ petitions filed after several years as in this case. It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him, should approach the Court as early as possible otherwise in addition to creation of sense of insecurity in the mind of Government servants, there shall also be administrative complication and difficulties In these circumstances we consider that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on the ground of laches." (Emphasis added) 20. While deciding the case, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in Malcom Lawrance Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India &Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1269 , wherein it had been observed as under:- "Although security of service cannot be used as a shield against the administrative action for lapse of a public servant, by and large one of the essential requirement of contentment and efficiency in public service is a feeling of security. It is difficult no doubt to guarantee such security in all its varied aspects, it should at least be possible to ensure that matters like one's position in a seniority list after having been settled for once should not be liable to be re-opened after lapse of many years in the instance of a party who has itself intervening party chosen to keep quiet. Raking up old matters like seniority after a long time is likely to resort in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should be given a quietus after lapse of some time." (Emphasis added) 21. In B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab &Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1510 , this Court while deciding the similar issue re-iterated the same view, observing as under:- "It is well settled that in service matters, the question of seniority should not be re-opened in such situations after the lapse of 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 along was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition". (Emphasis added) 22. In Dayaram Asanand v. State of Maharashtra &Ors. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This along was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition". (Emphasis added) 22. In Dayaram Asanand v. State of Maharashtra &Ors. AIR 1984 SC 850 , while re-iterating the similar view this Court held that in absence of satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay of 8-9 years in questioning under Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the seniority and promotion assigned to other employee could not be entertained. 23. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1975 SC 2271 , this Court considered the case where the petition was filed after lapse of 14 years challenging the promotion. However, this Court held that aggrieved person must approach the Court expeditiously for relief and it is not permissible to put forward stale claim. The Court observed as under :- "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." 24. 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 extra ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who standby and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claim and try to unsettle settled matters.' 7. The Honble Supreme Court after discussing the case law on the point concluded that as laid down in the case of K.R.Budgal Vs. R.P.Singh, reported in AIR 1986 SC 2086 , the seniority list which has remained in existence for three to four years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. It was, thus, held that a period of 3 to 4 years would be a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case issue of seniority is agitated beyond the said period, the petitioner will have to explain the delay and laches in approaching the Court by furnishing satisfactory explanation. It was, thus, held that a period of 3 to 4 years would be a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case issue of seniority is agitated beyond the said period, the petitioner will have to explain the delay and laches in approaching the Court by furnishing satisfactory explanation. The conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court in paragraph No.29 of Shiba Shankar Mohapatras case is, thus, pertinent and, therefore, reproduced herein as under:- '29. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal (supra), this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.' 8. The case of the petitioner, as set up in this petition, when considered in the light of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court does not merit admission. Not only there is a huge delay of 15 years in challenging the first final seniority list issued on 10.02.2003, but, there is more than 5 years' delay in throwing challenge to the updated seniority list issued on 04.06.2012 by way of impugned order. The impugned final seniority list, was, for the first time objected to by the petitioners through the medium of Review Petition claimed to have been filed by the petitioners on 30.01.2018. There is no explanation furnished by the petitioners as to why they never objected to the final seniority list issued in the year 2003 nor is coming forth, as to why updated final seniority list issued on 04.06.2012 was objected to only in the year 2018, that too, a few months before the filing of the writ petition. 9. In view of the conduct of the petitioners and their long slumbering over the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed being hit by delay and laches.