JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:- (i) That the petitioner may be held entitled to promotion as Sister Tutor with effect from 04.02.1998 when Staff Nurses junior to her i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4, were so promoted. (ii) That the petitioner may be held entitled to all consequential benefits including her placement as Sister Tutor over and above respondents No. 3 and 4 in the final seniority list of Sister Tutor. (iii) That the final seniority list of Sister Tutors issued vide memo dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure P-6), may be quashed and set aside to the extent impugned. The respondents may be directed to redraw the seniority list and place the petitioner above respondents No.3 and 4 with all consequential benefits. (iv) That respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed not to give any further promotion/posting to respondents No. 3 and 4 on the basis of impugned final seniority list issued on 20.07.2011. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse in the department of Health and Family Welfare, Himachal Pradesh, on 03.03.1989. During service, she qualified B.Sc. Nursing Course from P.G.I. Chandigarh between 1994-1996. 3. Respondents No. 3 and 4 were also working as Staff Nurses with the department of Health and Family Welfare, H.P. Both the respondents were promoted as Sister Tutors, vide promotion order dated 04.02.1998 in pursuance to recommendation of D.P.C. convened in the year 1997. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No. 3 and 4 were junior to her in the cadre of Staff Nurses. They had not even completed five years of service in the cadre and were promoted as Sister Tutors before petitioner on 04.02.1998. In such backdrop, petitioner has approached this Court for reliefs noted above. 5. Petitioner has alleged that she had represented for being promoted as Sister Tutor, vide representations dated 09.09.1999 and 24.03.2001. She was finally promoted, vide office order dated 29.03.2001 as Sister Tutor. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she was assured by the authorities that her promotion would be dated back to grant her seniority above respondents No. 3 and 4. Petitioner has pleaded her cause of action to file instant petition, on the basis of seniority list of Sister Tutors issued in the year 2011, wherein she was shown junior to private respondents. 6. Petitioner has pleaded her cause of action to file instant petition, on the basis of seniority list of Sister Tutors issued in the year 2011, wherein she was shown junior to private respondents. 6. The official respondents have filed reply to the petition and have contested the claim of the petitioner. As per their stand, some posts of Sister Tutors were lying vacant. The department of Health and Family Welfare invited options, vide letter dated 26.08.1997, from Staff Nurses to opt in teaching cadre. The cut-off date was fixed as 29.10.1997. The requirement of B.Sc. Nursing and confidential report for last three years of the desirous candidates were also sought. In pursuance to this process, the D.P.C. was held and respondents No. 3 and 4 were promoted as Sister Tutors. Petitioner had not opted for being promoted as Sister Tutor in response to letter dated 26.08.1997. Petitioner was promoted w.e.f. 29.04.2001 as Sister Tutor and as such her place in the seniority list was correctly mentioned below respondents No. 3 and 4. The official respondents have further contested the claim of the petitioner being time barred and also suffering from vice of delay and laches. 7. Respondents No. 3 and 4 though have filed their separate replies, but their grounds of defence are substantially identical. As per private respondents, their promotion as Sister Tutors was result of option submitted by them in response to letter dated 26.08.1997. Since the petitioner had not availed the opportunity, at that stage, she cannot claim herself to be on equal footing with private respondents. It is further submitted that the private respondents were duly registered with Nursing Council Punjab. They were working as Staff Nurses in the department of Health and Family Welfare, H.P. They immediately opted for the teaching line in Nursing, when they got the opportunity in pursuance to letter dated 26.08.1997. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have also taken a stand that the claim of the petitioner was stale. Petitioner throughout had the knowledge that private respondents were senior to her in the cadre of Sister Tutors. The department of Health and Family Welfare, H.P., had been circulating the seniority list of Sister Tutors on regular basis. One such list was circulated on 02.02.1999 showing the seniority position of Sister Tutors as on 31.12.1998. Another final seniority list of Sister Tutors as on 30.04.2001 was again circulated in February, 2002. The department of Health and Family Welfare, H.P., had been circulating the seniority list of Sister Tutors on regular basis. One such list was circulated on 02.02.1999 showing the seniority position of Sister Tutors as on 31.12.1998. Another final seniority list of Sister Tutors as on 30.04.2001 was again circulated in February, 2002. A similar list showing seniority position of Sister Tutors as on 31.12.2005 was also circulated. Another tentative seniority list of Sister Tutors as on 31.08.2009 was again issued. Final seniority list of Sister Tutors as on 31.12.2010 has also been placed on record to show that petitioner had feigned ignorance about her seniority position in the seniority list. As per private respondents, the cause of action, if any, had accrued in favour of the petitioner immediately on promotion of private respondents as Sister Tutors and thereafter on each and every successive date as the seniority list of Sister Tutors had been circulated by the department on regular basis. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 9. The facts of the case as have emerged from the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record reveal that on 26.08.1997 respondent No. 2 had issued a communication to the Principal, I.G.M.C. Shimla, all the Chief Medical Officers/Medical Superintendents in the State, the Zonal Leprosy Officers and all the Block Medical Officers in the State, which reads as under:- “Some posts of Sister Tutors in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 are lying in the various Health and Family Welfare Training Schools of this Department. You are, therefore, requested to give vide publicity amongst the Nursing personnels for opting the teaching cadre who has/have passed B.Sc. Nursing. The options of the desirous Nursing personnels (Ward Sisters/Staff Nurse) must reach in this Directorate on or before 29.10.1997. The B.Sc. Nursing certificate alongwith confidential reports for the last three years may also be sent. Please take note that no options after 29.10.1997 shall pertained in any case. The options and other all documents as required above should be send through you immediately. This supersedes previous options called vide this Directorate letter of even number dated 4.6.1996.” 10. The B.Sc. Nursing certificate alongwith confidential reports for the last three years may also be sent. Please take note that no options after 29.10.1997 shall pertained in any case. The options and other all documents as required above should be send through you immediately. This supersedes previous options called vide this Directorate letter of even number dated 4.6.1996.” 10. Though in rejoinder, petitioner has stated that she had not received copy of letter dated 26.08.1997, yet it cannot be believed that petitioner was not aware about the options invited vide above noted communication. At the time of issuance of communication dated 26.08.1997, petitioner was working as Staff Nurse in District Hospital Chamba. Since, the communication dated 26.08.1997 was addressed to all the Chief Medical Officers/ Medical Superintendents in the State, it must have been sent to the Chief Medical Officer/ Medical Superintendent District Hospital Chamba. Evidently, no separate communication was required to be served upon the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner clearly failed to avail benefit of option invited vide communication dated 26.08.1997. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the promotion of respondents No. 3 and 4 was not in accordance with rules. In any case, in absence of any challenge being made either to communication dated 26.08.1997 or to the promotion of petitioner, this Court need not go into such questions. 11. The main relief claimed by petitioner is to seek seniority in the cadre of Sister Tutor above the private respondents. Before testing the claim of petitioner on merits, the objection of respondents regarding stale claim of petitioner needs to be addressed. Hence, the issue that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner had approached the Court with sufficient promptitude or her claim was barred by delay and laches? 12. Petitioner has not sought any relief with respect to the promotion of respondents No. 3 and 4 as Sister Tutors. Petitioner has sought the relief to the extent that she should be placed senior to the private respondents in the seniority list of Sister Tutors. As per petitioner, the cause of action arose to her for filing the present petition, when she found herself to be lower in seniority than private respondents in the seniority list of Sister Tutors circulated by department of Health and Family Welfare, H.P in the year 2011. 13. As per petitioner, the cause of action arose to her for filing the present petition, when she found herself to be lower in seniority than private respondents in the seniority list of Sister Tutors circulated by department of Health and Family Welfare, H.P in the year 2011. 13. The controversy in hand leads this Court to scan through various documents placed on record. Petitioner has filed a copy of representation made by her to respondent No.2 on 09.09.1999. Its contents reveal that she had not made any grievance with respect to the promotion of private respondents as Sister Tutors. Annexure P-5 is a copy of another representation of petitioner submitted to respondent No.2 on 24.03.2001, in which she had raised grievance about promotion of private respondents in February, 1998 as Sister Tutors by ignoring the petitioner. Immediately thereafter petitioner was promoted as Sister Tutor, vide order dated 29.03.2001. The record further reveals that department of Health and Family Welfare, H.P. has been circulating the seniority list of Sister Tutors periodically. One such list was issued on 22.01.1999 showing seniority position of Sister Tutors as on 31.12.1998. Another final seniority list of Sister Tutors as on 30.04.2001 is also on record. Similar seniority lists circulated in the years 2005, 2006, 2009 and 2010 also find place on record. In all these seniority lists of Sister Tutors private respondents have been shown above the petitioner. The presence of above noted seniority lists of Sister Tutors clearly belies the stand of the petitioner that after making a representation, vide Annexure P-5, she waited till 2011 to file the petition on the alleged assurance of the authorities to redress her grievance. Noticeably, immediately after the submission of representation, Annexure P-5, by petitioner, she was promoted as Sister Tutor on 29.03.2001. Her stand to the extent that the cause of action accrued to her in 2011 when she noticed placement of her name at lower place than that of the petitioner in the seniority list is also falsified. The fact that updated seniority list of Sister Tutors had been circulated by the competent authority periodically is sufficient to infer that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. She was aware throughout that the private respondents were senior to her in the cadre of Sister Tutors. The fact that updated seniority list of Sister Tutors had been circulated by the competent authority periodically is sufficient to infer that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. She was aware throughout that the private respondents were senior to her in the cadre of Sister Tutors. Thus, the cause of action, if any, had arisen in her favour atleast when she made representation, Annexure P-5, on 24.03.2001. 14. In CWP No.1218 of 2021, titled as Suresh Kapoor and Ors. Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 01.12.2022, a Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: - “9. It is more than settled that there has to be an element of repose and a stale claim, more particularly to the one related to seniority and promotion, cannot be resuscitated. 10. It is also beyond any cavil or doubt that the remedy under article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary one. For sufficient or cogent reasons, the court may, in a given case, refuse to exercise its jurisdiction; delay and laches being one of them. While considering the question of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners, the court must also consider the effect thereof. 11. As regards the service matters, more particularly, pertaining to seniority and promotion, the delay is to be strictly construed or else it would amount to unsettling the settled matters after a lapse of time. A person aggrieved by an order of promotion should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It has been further held that it is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle matters.” 15. In Union of India and others vs. C. Girija and others, (2019) 15 SCC 633 , the legal position has been summarized as under: - “16. This Court had occasion to consider the question of cause of action in reference to grievances pertaining to service matters. This Court in C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Another, (2008) 10 SCC 115 had occasion to consider the case where an employee was terminated and after decades, he filed a representation, which was decided. After decision of the representation, he filed an O.A. in the Tribunal, which was entertained and order was passed. In the above context, in paragraph No.9, following has been held:- “9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any “decision” on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to “consider”. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to “consider”. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.” 17. This Court again in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 on belated representation laid down following, which is extracted below:- “15. When a belated representation in regard to a “stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead” issue or time-barred dispute. When a belated representation in regard to a “stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead” issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court’s direction. Neither a court’s direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.” 18. Again, this Court in State of Uttaranchal and Another Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 179 had occasion to consider question of delay in challenging the promotion. The Court further held that representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance does not give rise to a fresh following was laid down:- “19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time. 23. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137 , this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: “16. … filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.” 19. This Court referring to an earlier judgment in P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.” 19. This Court referring to an earlier judgment in P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 noticed that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. In Paragraph No. 26 and 28, following was laid down:- “26. Presently, sitting in a time machine, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench decision in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152 , wherein it has been laid down that: (SCC p. 154, para 2) “2. … A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.” 28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court.” 20. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court.” 20. On the preposition as noticed above, it is clear that the claim of the applicant for inclusion of her name in the panel, which was issued on 09.01.2001 and for the first time was raked up by her, by filing representation on 25.09.2007, i.e., after more than 06 and half years. The claim of inclusion in the panel had become stale by that time and filing of representation will not give any fresh cause of action. Thus, mere fact that representation was replied by Railways on 27.12.2007, a stale claim shall not become a live claim. Both Tribunal and High Court did not advert to this important aspect of the matter. It is further to be noted from the material on record that after declaration of panel on 09.01.2001, there were further selection under 30% promotion by LDCE quota, in which the applicant participated. In selection held in 2005 she participated and was declared unsuccessful. With regard to her non-inclusion in panel in 2005 selection, she also filed O.A. No. 629 of 2006 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. After participating in subsequent selections under 30% quota and being declared unsuccessful, by mere filing representation on 27.09.2007 with regard to selection made in 2001, the delay and laches shall not be wiped out.” 16. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is clearly evident that petitioner was throughout aware of her placement in seniority list. The private respondents had been promoted to the posts of Sister Tutor much prior to the date when petitioner was promoted to the said post and in such view of the matter it can be believed that petitioner had reasons to entertain any misgiving about her seniority position vis-a-vis private respondents. Above all the periodic circulation of seniority list of Senior Tutors by competent authority completely belies the stand of the petitioner. 17. Keeping in view the facts of the case and exposition of law noticed above, the claim of the petitioner as regards her seniority above private respondents is clearly not maintainable being barred by delay and laches. 18. Above all the periodic circulation of seniority list of Senior Tutors by competent authority completely belies the stand of the petitioner. 17. Keeping in view the facts of the case and exposition of law noticed above, the claim of the petitioner as regards her seniority above private respondents is clearly not maintainable being barred by delay and laches. 18. In result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 19. The petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.