JUDGMENT : Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 18-10-2019 passed by the Secretary, Transport Department (Respondent No.2) whereby the petitioner’s claim for promotion as District Transport Officer (Junior) has been rejected. The earlier rejection contained in the order dated 01-06-2018 passed by the State Transport Commissioner is also impugned in the instant proceedings. 3. The brief facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was working as Upper Division Clerk (for brevity ‘UDC’) and while he was under suspension, applications were invited from the desirous UDC in the Transport Department for being considered for promotion to the post of District Transport Officer (Junior). The advertisement is dated 10-09-2007 (Annexure-1). 4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was under suspension. Thereafter, he was visited with an order of punishment by the Authorities pursuant to a Departmental proceedings. The entire outcome of the Department Proceeding was the subject matter of CWJC No. 3558 of 2012 earlier filed by the petitioner, wherein, punishment order was set aside and petitioner was allowed consequential benefits on account of setting aside of the order of punishment. The order is dated 17-04-2012. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Authorities by making an application on 27-12-2016, placing reliance on decision of this Court granting consequential benefits to the petitioner. In this application, the petitioner claimed that he was at due seniority for being granted the benefit of his promotion pursuant to the process initiated under the Advertisement dated 10-09-2007. On account of his suspension, he could not make application in response to the said advertisement. He, therefore, requested the Authorities that in view of the order passed by this Court granting consequential benefits and considering the aforesaid factum of the petitioner being under suspension, the application dated 27-12-2016 be treated as his application for the process of selection initiated under advertisement dated 10-09-2007. The claim of the petitioner was pending before the Authorities then he approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 1559 of 2017. This Court directed the petitioner to file a representation and the authorities were obliged to consider his claim under the order dated 21-03-2018 passed in CWJC No. 1559 of 2017. It is, in this background, that the Transport Commissioner has passed the order dated 01-06-2018 (Annexure-7). This Court directed the petitioner to file a representation and the authorities were obliged to consider his claim under the order dated 21-03-2018 passed in CWJC No. 1559 of 2017. It is, in this background, that the Transport Commissioner has passed the order dated 01-06-2018 (Annexure-7). The order rejecting the petitioner’s claim is based on the following reasons:- ^^6- Jh flag }kjk ;g Hkh dgk fd os Jh lcy dqekj ,oa eksŒ lkfnd tQj] mPp oxhZ; fyfid ls ojh; gS vr% ojh;rk ds vk/kkj ij bUgs Hkh izksUufr nh tk;A mij of.kZr lHkh rF;ks ij lE;d fopkjksijkar ,oa dk;kZy; esa miyC/k vfHkys[kks ds vuq'khyu esa ;g ik;k x;k fd Jh flag }kjk ftyk ifjogu inkf/kdkjh ¼duh;½ ds in ij izksUufr ds bPNqd ugh FksA vr% Jh flag }kjk izLrqr nkos dks fopkjksijkar vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA^ 5. The petitioner, thereafter, has not relented and continued to pursue the matter. Placing reliance on similar benefit granted to one Shashi Shekharam, he has again represented before the Authority and the claim has, again, been rejected by the impugned order dated 18-10-2019. The reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s claim, however, remains the same that the petitioner was not an applicant. Since he has chosen not to apply, he cannot stake claim pursuant to the process initiated under the Advertisement dated 10-09-2007. 6. Learned senior counsel, however, would submit that in view of the petitioner’s seniority the authorities should reconsider the matter. He further submits that this Court has allowed opportunity to the similarly situated, namely, Shashi Shekharam, and, therefore, the petitioner has also a case for being considered. 7. The State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the order passed by the authorities impugned in the instant proceedings are well considered. The factum of the petitioner not being an applicant, pursuant to the advertisement is not disputed. The Court, therefore, has considered the terms and conditions mentioned in the Advertisement dated 10-09-2007. The same clearly specifies the last date for submission of the application being 23-10-2007 with a clear stipulation that beyond this cut-off-date, no application shall be considered. The petitioner’s claim for parity with Shashi Shekharam, is also found to be untenable. Shashi Shekharam, was deprived of his opportunity to apply in response to the advertisement dated 10-09-2007 as he had provisionally been allotted Jharkhand cadre in the process of bifurcation of the State under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The petitioner’s claim for parity with Shashi Shekharam, is also found to be untenable. Shashi Shekharam, was deprived of his opportunity to apply in response to the advertisement dated 10-09-2007 as he had provisionally been allotted Jharkhand cadre in the process of bifurcation of the State under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The case of Shashi Shekharam, therefore, stands on a different pedestal. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner has chosen not to apply in accordance with and in response to the advertisement dated 10-09-2007. The first application made by the petitioner is of the year 2016 nearly 09 years after the cut-off-date requesting the authorities to consider it as being an application in response to the advertisement. Such claim of the petitioner is factually and legally far fetched and clearly unsustainable. The petitioner having chosen not to participate in the process of promotion, would have no right to claim consideration in the process of promotion. 9. This Court would observe that it is on account of laches on part of the petitioner, in not applying in response to advertisement dated 10-09-2007 that his claim was barred and could not be considered. The application dated 27-12-2016 was way beyond the cut-off date for application (23-10-2007), having been submitted on 27-12-2016. 10. The authorities have, therefore, rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim for promotion. This Court would find that the claim for promotion having been made beyond the cut-off date was legally unsustainable. The claim of the petitioner is also unsustainable due to delay and laches on his part. 11. The application is dismissed.