ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “a) That the respondent may kindly be directed to issue promotion order of the applicant as an Assistant Accounts Officer retrospectively form the date his juniors have already been promoted as such. b) That the entire original record of the Departmental Promotion Committee Meetings held during 95-96 may kindly be summoned for perusal and verification of the Hon’ble Tribunal.” 2. Record reveals that petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in the year 1998 by way of O.A. No. 483 of 1998. The grievance of the petitioner was that his juniors were promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, whereas, he was ignored. Petitioner, as per affidavit annexed with O.A. No. 483 of 1998 was aged 52 years in the year 1998. 24 long years have elapsed but the case of the petitioner remained being knocked from one forum to another and finally again came to be registered in this Court as CWPOA No. 3969 of 2019. 3. Petitioner was working as Senior Accountant and at that time, the petitioner was posted in the office of Regional Manager, HPMC, Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P. As per petitioner, there was no complaint with his working and he had unblemished service record of more than 17 years. The name of petitioner was at Sr. No.2 of the tentative seniority list of Senior Accountants as on 1.1.1989. Respondent No.2 had called for options for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer in its Regional Office of Madras. Petitioner also opted for promotion but not for the Madras Office. Sh. B. S. Kashyap, who was at Sr. No.1 in the seniority list was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer in Madras Office of respondent No.2. One Sh. Rajender Chauhan, who was lower in seniority to petitioner was also promoted and posted as Assistant Accounts Officer at Bombay. Similarly, another person junior to petitioner was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer was also promoted before petitioner. Despite representation of the petitioner, he was not extended the benefit of promotion, forcing him to file the instant petition. 4. Per-contra, respondents submitted that the post of Assistant Accounts Officer was selection post, therefore, merit-cum-seniority was the criteria for promotion. Similarly, another person junior to petitioner was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer was also promoted before petitioner. Despite representation of the petitioner, he was not extended the benefit of promotion, forcing him to file the instant petition. 4. Per-contra, respondents submitted that the post of Assistant Accounts Officer was selection post, therefore, merit-cum-seniority was the criteria for promotion. Petitioner had lesser merit than the persons promoted and hence, the grievance of the petitioner was said to be unjustified. The objection as to limitation was also raised. It was alleged that the promotions assailed by the petitioner were effected on 14.3.1996, whereas petitioner approached the learned Tribunal in December, 1998. As per respondents, the petition was otherwise also not maintainable, as the petitioner had not exhausted the remedy available to him, under the service byelaws of the respondent Corporation by filing appeal to the Board of Directors. 5. Petitioner in his rejoinder did not contest the plea of the respondents that the post of Assistant Accounts Officer was a selection post. The allegations of the respondents that the persons with higher merit were promoted also could not be seriously disputed by the petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. On 8.7.2022, this Court had passed the following orders:- “It has been contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that post of Assistant Accounts Officer being selection post, all the incumbents including the petitioner in the zone of consideration were considered but the petitioner was not found fit for promotion. The contention so raised on behalf of respondent No.2, however, is not borne out from the record save and except averment in reply to that effect. In view of this, respondent Nno.2 is directed to produce the complete record regarding promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer along with the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee, if any, whereby the name of petitioner was not found fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Record be produced before this Court on the next date of hearing. List on 26th August, 2022.” Record was produced and a copy thereof was placed on file. Learned counsel for the petitioner was also afforded opportunity to go through the records. 8. Record be produced before this Court on the next date of hearing. List on 26th August, 2022.” Record was produced and a copy thereof was placed on file. Learned counsel for the petitioner was also afforded opportunity to go through the records. 8. As per record produced by the respondents, the meeting of Department Promotion Committee was held on 14.3.1996 to consider promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officers in HPMC. As per memorandum submitted before the DPC, there were two vacancies of Assistant Accounts Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 2130-3700, available at Madras and Bombay. It was found that one Senior Accountant was already officiating as Assistant Accounts Officer and was posted at Madras since August, 1995. The DPC, therefore, considered the available seven senior most Accountants vis-à-vis their grading. As per available grading Sh. Rajender Chauhan, who was otherwise junior to the petitioner had ‘Very Good’ as overall grading whereas, the petitioner had ‘Good’ grading against his name. Accordingly, Sh. Balbir Kashyap and Rajender Chauhan were promoted. Petitioner could not have any possible grievance against the promotion of Sh. Balbir Kashyap being senior to him. The promotion of Sh. Rajender Chauhan also could not be faulted as he had ‘Very Good’ grading against his name as against the petitioner, who was graded as ‘Good’. 9. The petitioner had never laid any challenge to the grading awarded to him. That being so, the petitioner cannot be said to have any merit in his claim, especially when the post of Assistant Accounts Officer was a selection post. 10. Further there is substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the respondents that the original application, as filed by the petitioner, was time barred. The cause of action had arisen to the petitioner on 14.3.1996, when his junior was promoted. There is no explanation as to why the petition could not be filed by petitioner, within the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act. 11. Noticeably, the petitioner had not even impleaded the persons promoted as Assistant Accounts Officers before him. On this account also, the petitioner cannot be said to have validly constituted the application. 12. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.