ORDER : 1. By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant-original petitioner has challanged an oral order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4200 of 2008. 2. The short facts emerging from the record of the case are as follows: 2.1 That, the appellant herein-original petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer with the respondent-Corporation on 10.04.1975. The appellant was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 01.09.1978. Thereafter, on 14.01.1983, the appellant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Deputy Superintending Engineer on 01.01.1986. Thereafter, the appellant was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 01.01.1990 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Chief Engineer on 01.01.1995. 2.2 It is the case of the appellant herein-original petitioner that he was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager on 01.01.1998 but he was not promoted as such to the said post. Since the Departmental Promotion Committee did not meet for two years and met for the first time in the year 2001, his junior Mr. Sumanta Sen Gupta, who was lastly promoted on 01.01.1997 was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager. 2.3 It is the case of the appellant herein-original petitioner that since his junior was promoted, he made representation to the respondent Corporation however, the same was not decided. Hence, the appellant was compelled to file petition being Special Civil Application No. 4200 of 2008 seeking following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents herein to promote the petitioner from E-5 level to E-6 level i.e. from Chief Engineer (Instrumentation) to Deputy General Manager (Instrumentation) from 01-01-1998 or from the date on which the first junior of the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager (Instrumentation) with all consequential and incidental benefits. (B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondents to promote the petitioner from E-5 level to E-6 level i.e. from Chief Engineer (Instrumentation) to Deputy General Manager (Instrumentation) from 01-01-1998 or from the date on which the first junior of the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager (Instrumentation) with all consequential and incidental benefits.” 2.4 In response to the notice issued by learned Single Judge, the respondent-Corporation appeared and filed affidavits and additional affidavits to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and opposed the grant of reliefs sought for by the petitioner. 2.5 The learned Single Judge after considering the rival submissions made by the respective parties, dismissed the captioned petition on three grounds viz. (1) applicability of relevant Regulations viz. Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of 1980; (2) Alternative remedy available under the said Regulations by way of filing appeal challenging the decision of non-granting of promotion and (3) delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in seeking the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. Hence, present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Saurabh Mehta appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Ajay Mehta appearing for the respondent-Corporation, who is on caveat. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Saurabh Mehta appearing for the appellant herein-original petitioner by taking us through a chart which is produced by the respondent-Corporation before the learned Single Judge, more particularly page No. 138, would submit that it is an undisputed fact that the present appellant-original petitioner was lastly promoted with effect from 01.01.1995 whereas Mr. Sumanta Sen Gupta, who was lastly promoted on 01.01.1997, was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager in the year 2000-01. He, therefore, would submit that the case of the petitioner to grant him promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager with effect from the year 2001 ought to have been considered by the respondent-Corporation as well as by the learned Single Judge. He would further submit that other employees who secured more marks than said Mr. Sumanta Sen Gupta have also not been promoted. He would further submit that other employees who secured more marks than said Mr. Sumanta Sen Gupta have also not been promoted. 4.1 By taking us through another Schedule, which is produced by the respondent-Corporation itself more particularly at page 135, he would submit that this is the chart showing data pertaining to promotion from E-5 to E-6 level (Instrumentation Discipline) with effect from 01.01.2006 wherein marks have been granted by Departmental Promotion Committee and the same should not have been considered for promotion. 4.2 Insofar as one of the ground of delay on the basis of which the learned Single Judge has refused the prayers of the petitioner is concerned, he would submit that the petitioner had made representation and was waiting for the response from the respondent-Corporation and therefore, could not file the petition timely. He would further submit that the appellant herein-original petitioner was never informed as to why the petitioner is not promoted and therefore, he was waiting for the response from the respondent Corporation. He would submit that insofar as ground of the petitioner having alternative remedy is concerned, it would have been a futile exercise if the petitioner would have filed appeal under Regulations 8 and 9 of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of 1980. He, therefore, would submit that Letters Patent Appeal be allowed and impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Ajay Mehta appearing for the respondent-Corporation has opposed this appeal and has supported the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge. He would submit that page 138 of the compilation of petition, which has been relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant suggests that Mr. Sumanta Sen Gupta has scored more marks in the year 2001 than the appellant and therefore, he was promoted. He would also submit that other employees have never raised any issue about non-promoting them. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant are required to be discarded. Sumanta Sen Gupta has scored more marks in the year 2001 than the appellant and therefore, he was promoted. He would also submit that other employees have never raised any issue about non-promoting them. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant are required to be discarded. He would submit that as far as details at page 135 of the compilation of the petition as relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant is concerned, it is clear that total marks received by the present appellant-original petitioner suggests that he was at S. No. 10 and as and when the post of Deputy General Manager became vacant, he was promoted that too in the year 2008. He, therefore, would submit that the present Letters Patent Appeal be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also gone through the prayers made in the petition, which are reproduced in earlier Para 2.3. 6.1 It is an undisputed fact that the appellant has claimed his right of promotion with effect from 01.01.1998 or from the date on which the first junior of the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager (Instrumentation) i.e. from the year 2001. The petition has been filed in the year 2008. The petitioner was fully aware that Mr. Sumanta Sen Gupta has been promoted way back in the year 2001 though he was lastly promoted in the year 1997. In our considered opinion, therefore the petitioner either ought to have filed appeal under Regulations 8 and 9 of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of 1980 or could have challenged the decision of the respondent-Corporation refusing his promotion by way of filing petition but the petitioner filed the petition in the year 2008 i.e. after a delay of more than 7 years and therefore, there is clear delay and laches on the part of the appellant herein-original petitioner. 6.2 It is also pertinent to note that there was an alternative remedy available to the petitioner which has not been availed by the petitioner. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that it would have been a futile exercise if he would have filed appeal under the provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of 1980. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that it would have been a futile exercise if he would have filed appeal under the provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of 1980. 6.3 As far as submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant about non-promoting other employees in the year 1998 though they had secured more marks than Mr. Sumanta Sen Gupta is concerned, said question is not before this Court since those persons have never challenged the decision of the respondent-Corporation of not promoting them in the year 2001. 6.4 The learned Single Judge has dealt with all the submissions raised on behalf of the appellant in detail and has observed as follows in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the impugned order: “11. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on 10-04-1975 and was promoted in due course to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 01-09-1978. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 14-01-1983 and to the post of Deputy Superintendent Engineer on 01-01-1986. From the post of Superintendent of Engineer, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer on 01-01-1995. Post of Chief Engineer is of level E-5 and thereafter, promotional post is of Deputy General Manager, which is post of level E-6. From the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations 1980 adopted by the respondent-Corporation, Regulation No. 7 is provided for filling up of vacancies by promotion and Sub-Regulation No. 11 provided for criteria for promotion. Upto level E-1, criteria is seniority cum fitness from level E-2 to E-4, criteria is quantification scheme, whereas for promotion that the petitioner claim is named as Corporate promotion, which is for level E-5 and above, where the criteria is merit promotion by selection. Regulation-7(11) (iii)(b) provides for merit promotion by selection, which reads as under: “Regulation-7(11)(iii)(b): Merit Promotion by Selection-Corporate Promotions (E-5 level and above): (1) The promotions at Corporate level (E-5 level and above) are based on Merit and quantification scheme. (2) The marks are awarded for quantification, experience, PARs and performance in the interview. (3) The qualifying marks are 60% in interview as well as over all for general candidates and 40% for SC/ST candidates.” 12. (2) The marks are awarded for quantification, experience, PARs and performance in the interview. (3) The qualifying marks are 60% in interview as well as over all for general candidates and 40% for SC/ST candidates.” 12. The Court has taken into consideration the Affidavit filed by the respondent to place on record, the procedure adopted for the purpose of promotion, which exercise also included name of the petitioner. Data sheet place on record at Annexure-H clearly indicates allotment of marks in each category namely for the marks allotted for qualification, PAR Grades, marks given by DPC. This would go on to indicate the total marks received by the petitioner as well as other persons, who participated in the promotion process. Nature of marks allotted by DPC go on to indicate that the marks allotted to each of the candidates participating are reasonable and the Court cannot make out any discrepancy. From the one data-sheet placed on Page-135, where the petitioner is shown to have received DPC marks-16, there was other candidates who have received much less marks in the DPC. However, on account of their PAR Grades as well as other parameters such candidates have scored more have been empaneled. 13. The Court is therefore satisfied that the procedure adopted by the respondents is in consonance with the provisions of their Regulations. The Court has taken into consideration the relevant provisions of the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of 1980, wherein Regulation No. 8 and 9 are quite relevant, which reads as under: “8. Appeals: (1) Any employee who is aggrieved by the order of promotion on the ground that he has not been selected may appeal to the Appellate Authority specified in sub-regulation (2). Provided that there shall be no right of appeal where the corporation is the Appointing Authority. (2) The appeal under sub-regulation (1) shall lie to an authority superior in rank to the appointing authority empowered in this behalf by the Corporation. (3) Any appeal under sub-regulation (1) shall be preferred within 30 days of the date of receipt of information by an employee under sub-regulation (9) of regulation 7. Provided that the Appellate Authority may, for sufficient reasons, entertain an appeal preferred within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of information by the employee. 9. (3) Any appeal under sub-regulation (1) shall be preferred within 30 days of the date of receipt of information by an employee under sub-regulation (9) of regulation 7. Provided that the Appellate Authority may, for sufficient reasons, entertain an appeal preferred within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of information by the employee. 9. Review: Where the Corporation is the Appointing Authority, an employee who is aggrieved, by the order of promotion on the ground that he has not been selected by such Appointing Authority may make an application to the corporation for review of its decision within 30 days of the date of receipt of an information by an employee under sub-regulation 9 of these Regulations. Provided that the corporation may for sufficient reasons entertain an application for review within a period of sixty days from the said date.” 14. Keeping in view of the provisions of Regulation No. 8 and 9 and thereafter considering the facts of the present case as agitated by the petitioner regarding his claim to the promotion with effect from 1998, which according to the petitioner is date on which the petitioner ought to have been promoted or at best, date on which his immediate Juniors were promoted. Still the petitioner has not resorted to the provisions of Regulation No. 8 and 9. Moreover, after almost lapse of period of 10 years, the petitioner has agitated the issue of promotion, when admittedly the petitioner was at the fag-end of his career and was about to retire. As is noted, the petitioner has been promoted in the month of August, 2008 and that to on the basis of the procedure adopted for the promotion, which justifies the promotion to the petitioner with effect from 01-01-2008 and the petitioner has retired on 31-08-2008.” 6.5 Considering the observations made by the learned Single Judge and as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge, present is not a case of seniority cum merit but is a case of merit cum seniority. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. In view of the above discussion, there being no merit, present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.