JUDGMENT : By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee, dated 02.12.2008, appended with the Petition as Annexure P2, in terms whereof, the incumbents mentioned therein were recommended for promotion to the posts of Block Medical Officers on regular basis as well as for proforma promotion and also notification dated 17.05.2008 (Annexure P4), in terms whereof, additional provision in Column-17 was inserted in the Himachal Pradesh Health & Family Welfare Department, Himachal Pradesh Block Medical Officer, Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2006. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under: As per the petitioner, he joined the respondent-Department as a Medical Officer on adhoc basis with effect from 13.08.1991. He was thereafter appointed on regular basis on the recommendation of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission w.e.f. 13.12.1992. Respondent/State notified Himachal Pradesh Health & Family Welfare Department, Himachal Pradesh Block Medical Officer, Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2006 Rules’) for the purpose of conferring promotion to Medical Officers as Block Medical Officers. In terms of these Rules, a Medical Officer with ten years of regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade, out of which three years’ service was required to be in hard/rural area was eligible for promotion to the post of Block Medical Officer, provided the officer had passed the departmental examination as prescribed under the Departmental Examination Rules, 1997. The petitioner, qualified the departmental examinations in April, 2008 and thus became eligible for promotion to the post of Block Medical Officer. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of Annexure P2, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the names of thirty four Medical Officers for promotion to the post of Block Medical Officers, which was followed by the recommendations of another Departmental Promotion Committee, held on 08.11.2010, proceedings of which are appended with his petition as Annexure P3. The petitioner was not recommended for promotion vide Annexure P2 and at the time he was of the opinion that he might not be falling in the zone of consideration. Thereafter, vide Annexure P3, the petitioner was recommended for promotion and he was promoted as a Block Medical Officer. The petitioner was not recommended for promotion vide Annexure P2 and at the time he was of the opinion that he might not be falling in the zone of consideration. Thereafter, vide Annexure P3, the petitioner was recommended for promotion and he was promoted as a Block Medical Officer. Thereafter, as per the petitioner, a provisional seniority list of Block Medical Officers was circulated by the respondent-Department vide Memorandum dated 25.07.2013 and after perusing the same, the petitioner was astonished to see that many Medical Officers who had not qualified the departmental examination, stood promoted as Block Medical Officers and after making calculations, the petitioner was further astonished to see that he was amongst few persons who had actually passed the departmental examination. Further, as per the petitioner, many ineligible persons were promoted as Block Medical Officer ahead of him and thus, his career was jeopardized as he was considered for promotion only in the year 2010. He subsequently came to know that respondent-Department had issued a notification dated 17.05.2008, which notification was relied upon by the Departmental Promotion Committee which was held in the year 2008, whereby in Column 17 of Recruitment and Promotion Rules, ‘an advantage has been made’ in favour ineligible Medical Officers. It is further averred in the petition that a Government notification cannot substitute, add or delete the provisions of Recruitment & Promotion Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and thus, the notification (Annexure P4) was bad in law. After the petitioner became aware of these facts, he made repeated representations, copies of which are appended with the petition as Annexure P5 to P7. He also raised objections to the seniority list vide Annexure P8. According to the petitioner, in view of the fact that the persons who were promoted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee which was held in the year 2008 were those who had not passed the departmental examination and the petitioner was ignored, said act of the respondent-Department was not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was also the allegation of the petitioner that persons like one Dr.Sanjeev Kapoor, who were juniors to him even as far as the date of appointment was concerned, were promoted w.e.f. 28.08.2008, whereas the petitioner was ignored. It was also the allegation of the petitioner that persons like one Dr.Sanjeev Kapoor, who were juniors to him even as far as the date of appointment was concerned, were promoted w.e.f. 28.08.2008, whereas the petitioner was ignored. In this backdrop, the petition stands filed, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings Annexure P2 dated 2.12.2008 and notification Annexure P4 dated 17.5.2008 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondent to convene review DPC for filling up 34 posts of Block Medical Officers as have been filled up vide DPC held on 2.12.2008 with further directions to follow the process as is laid down for filling up the selection post and only to consider the eligible candidates. (iii) That further a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondent to promote the petitioner as Block Medical Officer with effect from December, 2008 with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, etc. etc.” 4. At the time when the Writ Petition was filed, there was only one respondent impleaded, i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Reply to the petition was filed by said respondent and the stand taken by it in the reply was that seventy five posts of Block Medical Officers were created in the Department for the first time on 14.11.2005 and Recruitment & Promotion Rules for filling the posts were notified on 05.07.2006. The post of Block Medical Officer was a promotion post which was to be filled up 100% from amongst Medical Officers with ten years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service in the grade, out of which three years of service was required to be in the hard/rural areas and passing the departmental examination was also a precondition. According to the State, during the process of filling up these posts, it was felt that most of the senior officers in the seniority list who were also possessing specialized qualifications, could not be considered for promotion as they had not passed the departmental examination. According to the State, during the process of filling up these posts, it was felt that most of the senior officers in the seniority list who were also possessing specialized qualifications, could not be considered for promotion as they had not passed the departmental examination. It was also felt that in case the specialized Doctors were promoted and posted on the administrative post of said Blocks, the shortage of specialist Doctors in regional hospital and other institutions was for sighted. To overcome the situation, it was decided that the Medical Officers who were fulfilling the eligibility criteria will be given regular promotion and specialist Doctors senior to said Medical Officers, will also be given promotion, but said promotion will be proforma promotion only. To overcome the situation of the senior Doctors not having passed the departmental examination on 17.05.2008, a notification was issued, vide which Column17 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Block Medical Officer was amended and a provision was inserted that Block Medical Officer having Degree/Diploma in a particular subject was exempted from passing departmental examination for the purpose of promotion to the grade of Block Medical Officer and above, but they were required to clear the departmental examination for actually holding the post of BMO/CMO/MS/Principal/Deputy Director. It was further the stand of the State that Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor was senior to the petitioner as a Medical Officer and was promoted as a Block Medical Officer on 28.04.2008. It was also the stand of the respondent that a perusal of Annexure P7, i.e. the representation filed by the petitioner appended with the petition demonstrated that actually he was not aggrieved by the promotions which were given to Medical Officers as Block Medical Officer in the year 2008, but he was also actually aggrieved by the acts of the Chief Medical Officers and the same had nothing to do with the revision of the seniority list. 5. Record demonstrates that during the pendency of the proceedings, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, i.e. M.A. No.121 of 2015, filed in T.A. No.1343 of 2015 for impleading Dr. Sanjay Sharma and Dr. Raj Kumar Dharoch as respondents in the Writ Petition. 5. Record demonstrates that during the pendency of the proceedings, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, i.e. M.A. No.121 of 2015, filed in T.A. No.1343 of 2015 for impleading Dr. Sanjay Sharma and Dr. Raj Kumar Dharoch as respondents in the Writ Petition. The reason mentioned in the application for their impleadment was that the Court had directed the petitioner to implead the persons who had stolen a march over the petitioner because of the notification which had not been incorporated in the Rules and accordingly, the petitioner was naming two persons who had not qualified the departmental examination till November, 2009, to be impleaded as parties. This application was allowed after the transfer of the matter from the High Court to the learned Tribunal by learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in terms of order dated 14.05.2015. 6. Record further demonstrates that in the year 2016, M.A. No.832 of 2016 was filed by four Doctors under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying for their impleadment as party respondents in the case, inter alia, on the ground that on account of the interim directions passed by the learned Tribunal the State was not making promotions to the post of Chief Medical Officer though Department Promotion Committee was convened on 30.04.2015. It was further averred that as the applicants therein were directly affected by the interim orders, they be impleaded as party respondents. This application was allowed by the learned Tribunal on 23.05.2016. 7. Thereafter, CMPT No.181 of 2022 was filed by another set of six Doctors for their impleadment as party respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner has challenged the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings dated 02.12.2008 in the year 2014 and the petitioner was seeking quashing of notification dated 17.05.2008 as also Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings after a lapse of five year and as the adjudication in the matter was likely to affect the applicants, therefore, they be impleaded as party respondents. This application was allowed by this Court on 25.07.2022 and this set of respondents was impleaded as respondents No.8 to 13 in the Writ Petition. 8. The set of respondents who were earlier impleaded are represented by Shri Onkar Jairath, learned counsel and respondents No.8 to 13 have been represented by Mr. This application was allowed by this Court on 25.07.2022 and this set of respondents was impleaded as respondents No.8 to 13 in the Writ Petition. 8. The set of respondents who were earlier impleaded are represented by Shri Onkar Jairath, learned counsel and respondents No.8 to 13 have been represented by Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Counsel on the instructing of Mr. Adarsh Vashisht, learned counsel. 9. The petition was opposed by respondents No.8 to 13, inter alia, on the ground that all the respondents who were promoted as Block Medical Officers alongwith the petitioner were appointed as Medical Officers on regular basis before him and as on the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended them for promotion to the post of Block Medical Officers, they had passed the departmental examination. According to them, there was a delay of five years in filing the Writ Petition assailing the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 02.12.2008 and in case the plea of the petitioner was accepted and a review of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 2008 was ordered, then but natural, its corollary would be the review of the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings in which these persons were promoted. They have further taken the stand that the petition is not only hit by delays and latches but otherwise also the same is not maintainable as due diligence has not been exercised by the petitioner either in assailing the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings of the year 2008 or the notification issued in the year 2008. According to the replying respondents, the petitioner has been assigned correct seniority in the provisional seniority list and thus as the petition was without any merit the same was liable to be dismissed. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that Recruitment & Promotion Rules were framed in exercise of powers vested under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Amendment, if any, had to be incorporated in the same manner as the Rules were framed. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that Recruitment & Promotion Rules were framed in exercise of powers vested under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Amendment, if any, had to be incorporated in the same manner as the Rules were framed. According to him, notification dated 17.05.2008, Annexure P4 was not issued in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and as neither it was published in the Official Gazette nor any amendments were incorporated accordingly in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, therefore, the act of the respondents of holding the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings of the year 2008 in terms of notification dated 17.05.2008, Annexure P4 is bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel argued that a Medical Officer, be it a specialist or otherwise, who had not passed the departmental examination, could not have been promoted to the post of Block Medical Officer on regular or on performa basis and the act of the respondents of promoting ineligible persons as Block Medical Officers on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee which was held on 02.12.2008, Annexure P2 is bad in law because on account of ineligible persons having been recommended for promotion, the petitioner was denied promotion to the said post though he was eligible in all respects. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was neither aware of the promotions which were made to the post of Block Medical Officers in the year 2008 nor was he aware of the fact that promotion stood conferred upon the persons who were not eligible as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. According to him, notification Annexure P4 was not in the notice of the petitioner. The petitioner came to know of all these developments only when tentative seniority list was issued by the respondent-Department in the year 2013. According to the learned Senior Counsel, as after perusing the tentative seniority list, the petitioner came to know that the Department had promoted ineligible persons to the post of Block Medical Officers in the year 2008, he initially filed representations, but when the same were not answered, he approached the Court without any delay. According to the learned Senior Counsel, as after perusing the tentative seniority list, the petitioner came to know that the Department had promoted ineligible persons to the post of Block Medical Officers in the year 2008, he initially filed representations, but when the same were not answered, he approached the Court without any delay. Learned Senior Counsel has thus submitted that in the teeth of promotions having been made in the year 2008 in violation of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, the present petition be allowed and the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 2008 be quashed and set aside and so also the notification and the respondent/Department be directed to hold a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee and consider in the same only those officers who were eligible as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for promotion to the post of Block Medical Officers, meaning thereby the Medial Officers who had passed the departmental examination. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the petition besides being hit by the principal of delays and latches was otherwise also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He argued that though it was not so stated in the reply, but fact of the matter remains that in terms of the recommendations which were made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (Annexure P2), quashing of which is being sought by the petitioner, thirty three officers were recommended for promotion to the post of Block Medical Officers and who were so promoted also. However, none of these thirty three incumbents were impleaded as party respondents in the Writ Petition either at the time of filing of the Writ Petition or thereafter and therefore, as the persons who are to be affected by outcome of the Writ Petition have not been arrayed as party respondents before this Court, the petition is liable to be dismissed being non-joinder of necessary parties. Learned Additional Advocate General also argued that there was no infirmity in the issuance of notification dated 17.05.2008, Annexure P4 or in the recommendations which were made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in terms of Annexure P2, for the reason that a perusal of notification dated 17.05.2008 demonstrates that it was issued by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh, i.e. the same authority which had framed the Recruitment & Promotion Rules and the notification was self-speaking that in terms thereof, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh was pleased to insert the additional provision in Column17. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that this notification which was in public domain was not challenged by the petitioner after its issuance nor the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 2008 or the promotions conferred thereupon were challenged by the petitioner within some reasonable time as he was also aware that there was no infirmity either with the notification or with the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Block Medical Officer in the year 2010 on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and this promotion was accepted by him without any protest and therefore also, the petitioner is barred from challenging either the notification in issue or the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 7 has adopted the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General as well as reply filed by the State. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.8 to 13 has also argued that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the persons who were recommended to be promoted in terms of Annexure P2 and who were promoted in terms of the recommendations, are not party respondents before this Court and therefore, in the absence of the necessary parties being before the Court, the petition was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings of the year 2008 could have been challenged by the petitioner maximum within one and half year from the date of their issuance as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the challenge laid to the same after a gap of five years without any due explanation as to why the petitioner could not have had approached the Court earlier does not cures the defect in the petition that the same is bad on account of delays and latches. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the replying respondents were promoted alongwith the petitioner in the year 2010. According to him, it is not in dispute that at the relevant time the replying respondents were eligible for promotion to the post of Block Medical Officer. He further submitted that though the petitioner in the Writ Petition had not sought the quashing of the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings of the year 2010, but if the petition was to be allowed, then its natural corollary was that the subsequent recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committees were also to be set at naught and in these circumstances, the respondents were also necessary party at the very threshold. But they were not impleaded as party respondents in the matter by the petitioner knowing fully well that they would be adversely affected in case the petition was allowed. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that notification dated 17.05.2008, Annexure P4 was otherwise also not bad in law, because as the source of its issuance was traceable being the Governor of Himachal Pradesh, who undoubtedly was having the authority under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India to frame the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, therefore, there was no illegality in the issuance of notification dated 17.05.2008. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that alternatively also, as there is a power of relaxation contained in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, therefore, this notification can also be deemed to be exercise of said power by the State Government and the reason and the rational as it stood spelled out in the reply of the State as to under what circumstances, notification dated 17.05.2008 was issued is self-explanatory that there was nothing wrong with the notification. 13. 13. In rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Writ Petition is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, because later on private persons have been impleaded as party respondents. As far as delays and latches are concerned, learned Senior Counsel argued that the petitioner was not aware of the Meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee which was held in the year 2008 as also of the fact that number of ineligible persons were promoted to the post of Block Medical Officer on the recommendation of this Departmental Promotion Committee, as the cadre of Medical Officers is a vast cadre and it is not possible for the petitioner to keep an eye on each and every Medical Officer, as to whether he or she has passed the departmental examination or not. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the entire pleadings as well as the documents appended with the plaint. 15. I will first deal with the preliminary objection which has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents with regard to maintainability of the petition. The relief being prayed for by the petitioner, inter alia, is for the quashing of Annexure P2, which are the proceedings of the Meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 02.12.2008 to consider the cases of eligible Medical Officers for promotion to the post of Block Medical Officers. A perusal of the said annexure demonstrates that in terms thereof, the Committee in all recommended the promotion of twenty one Medical Officers to the post of Block Medical Officer on regular basis in Health and Family Welfare Department, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and further the Committee recommended proforma promotion to twelve Medical Officers who were specialists as Block Medical Officer. 16. As, I have already mentioned in the above part of the judgment at the time when the Writ Petition was initially filed, only the State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Health) was impleaded as a party respondent. Meaning thereby, that the persons who were the beneficiaries of the proceedings of the Meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 02.12.2008 were not impleaded as party respondents by the writ petitioner. Meaning thereby, that the persons who were the beneficiaries of the proceedings of the Meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 02.12.2008 were not impleaded as party respondents by the writ petitioner. The effect of the prayer of the petitioner qua quashing of Annexure P2 being allowed in his favour obviously leads to the situation wherein the promotions which were conferred upon thirty thee persons in all on the basis of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (Annexure P2), are going to be set at naught. This obviously will have civil consequences as far as these thirty three officers are concerned, many of whom as of now as the Court has been told have superannuated or have been promoted to higher posts. Incidently, though the grievance in the Writ Petition is with regard to the recommendation of promotion of Medical Officers as Block Medical Officers who were not eligible for promotion for want of having passed the departmental examination, yet the prayer made for quashing of the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee, Annexure P2, in totality which includes the recommendation for promotion of twenty one Medical Officers as Block Medical Officer on regular basis who were otherwise eligible for promotion to the post of Block Medical Officer. 17. In the above part of the judgment, I have chronologically narrated the factum of three applications having been filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code either by the petitioner or by the private parties for their impleadment as party respondents and a perusal of the memo of parties vis-à-vis the Medical Officers who were recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee in terms of Annexure P2 demonstrates that none of the persons who now stand impleaded as party respondents, are the persons who were recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee in terms of Annexure P2. This means that these thirty three persons are not before the Court till date. This obviously leads to a situation that in case the present Writ Petition has to be allowed in terms of the prayers made in the Writ Petition then a decision will be passed by this Court against thirty three persons without hearing them at their back. This means that these thirty three persons are not before the Court till date. This obviously leads to a situation that in case the present Writ Petition has to be allowed in terms of the prayers made in the Writ Petition then a decision will be passed by this Court against thirty three persons without hearing them at their back. Not only this, as the outcome of the Writ Petition was having a direct impact on said thirty three persons, therefore, these thirty three persons obviously not only were proper parties, but were “necessary parties”. Therefore, in the absence of these persons having been impleaded as party respondents by the petitioner till date, the Writ Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the same is liable to be dismissed on this count alone, as the Court cannot adjudicate this lis at the back of the persons whose interest would adversely be affected by the outcome of the petition. 18. Now, coming to the issue of delays and latches, the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings (Annexure P2) were conducted on 02.12.2008 and the notification which stands assailed by the petitioner was issued on 17.05.2008. The Writ Petition was filed on 21.07.2014. The reasons assigned in the petition as to why the impugned annexures were not assailed earlier in the Writ Petition are that the petitioner was working as a Block Medical Officer and a provisional seniority list of Block Medical Officers was framed by the respondents by way of Memorandum, dated 25.07.2013. After perusing the same the petitioner was astonished to see that many persons who had not qualified the departmental examination were promoted as Block Medical Officers and after making the entire calculations the petitioner was further astonished that as he was amongst only a few persons who had passed the departmental examination, therefore, he was required to be considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee of 2008, but many persons who otherwise ineligible stood promoted as Block Medical Officers ahead of him which jeopardized his rights. He further came to know that even in the year 2010, he was recommended for promotion alongwith those persons who had passed the departmental examination after him. Therefore, he came to know that respondents had issued Notification dated 17.05.2008, which was relied upon by the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 2008. He further came to know that even in the year 2010, he was recommended for promotion alongwith those persons who had passed the departmental examination after him. Therefore, he came to know that respondents had issued Notification dated 17.05.2008, which was relied upon by the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 2008. It is further averred in the petition that when the petitioner came to know of these facts, he made representations and thereafter, approached the Court. 19. This Court is of the considered view that the reasons as they stand mentioned in the petition, explaining as to why the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2014, do not convince the Court. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Medical Officer and he from the very inception is holding a Class1 post. The recommendations which were made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 2008 obviously resulted into the issuance of promotion orders of Medical Officers to the post of Block Medical Officers. In fact, the cause to challenge the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee accrued to the petitioner when on the basis of these recommendations the promotion orders were issued, but neither those promotion orders have been placed on record nor the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee were challenged within reasonable time. The explanation of the petitioner that he came to know of all these things only after the issuance of provisional seniority list cannot be accepted, for the reason that this Court cannot believe that since 2008, upto 2013, the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the Medical Officers who had not passed the departmental examinations, were promoted to the post of Block Medical Officers on the strength of Notification dated 17.05.2008. 20. A careful perusal of the representations which were filed by the petitioner, copies where of are appended with the petition, demonstrates that in none of these representations it has been spelled out by the petitioner that he was not aware of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee which took place in the year 2008 or of the notification Annexure P4 which was taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee for making the recommendations. This demonstrates that the pleadings in the petition that the petitioner came to know of these developments only after the issuance of provisional seniority list in the year 2013 are nothing but afterthought just to explain the delay. 21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S. Rathore Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 (Hon’ble seven Judges Bench) has held that in terms of the provisions of Section 21 of the Administration Tribunals Act, subsection (1) thereof has prescribed a period of one year for making of the application (i.e. the Original Application) and power of condonation of delay of a total of six months has been vested under subsection (3). Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that Civil Courts jurisdiction has been taken away by the Act and therefore, as far as Government servants are concerned, Article 58 may not be invokable in view of the special limitation, yet suits outside the purview of Administrative Tribunal Act shall continue to be governed by Article 58. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is proper that the position in such cases should be uniform and therefore in every such cases only when the appeal or representation provided by the law is disposed of, cause of action shall first accrue and where such order is not made on the expiry of six months from the date when the appeal was filed or representation was made, the right to sue shall first accrue. 22. Thereafter, in Union of India and Others Versus Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delays and latches and one of the exceptions to the said rule are cases relating to continuing wrong. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception and if the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which is related to or affected several other persons also and if the reopening of the issue would effect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that for example, if the issue related to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affects the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc. affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of latches/limitation will be applied. 23. In Prahlad Raut Versus All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1110, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) is unexceptionable and only in the cases of continuing wrong relief may be granted notwithstanding delay provided the granting of relief does not unsettles matter settle and affects third parties. 24. Coming to the facts of the present case, the grievance of the petitioner originates from the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (Annexure P2), dated 02.12.2008. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the issuance of Notification dated 17.05.2008. I have already mentioned hereinabove that the actual promotion orders which were issued by the Department on the basis of the recommendations of the proceedings Annexure P2 have not been appended by the petitioner with the Writ Petition nor the persons promoted have been made a party to the Writ Petition till date. 25. Article 58 of the Limitation Act provides that three years is the limitation for approaching the Court seeking declaration as from the date when right to sue first accrued. Herein, the right to sue first accrued as on the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee met and from the said date, the petition has not been filed within three years. Article 58 of the Limitation Act provides that three years is the limitation for approaching the Court seeking declaration as from the date when right to sue first accrued. Herein, the right to sue first accrued as on the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee met and from the said date, the petition has not been filed within three years. Though, this Court is not oblivious to the fact that present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and principles of delays and latches are attracted, yet it is held that as delay of five years in filing the petition has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches, because if adjudicated on merit and that too in the absence of the affected parties being before the Court, it obviously would unsettle the things which stood settled as far back as in the year 2008. 26. Therefore, in view of the findings returned hereinabove, this Writ Petition is dismissed, on the grounds that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and further is hit by delays and latches. As far as the legality of Notification dated 17.05.2008 (Annexure P4) is concerned, this Court is not adjudicating upon the same and the issue is left open. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.