JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. State of Uttarakhand has challenged judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 passed by learned Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand in Claim Petition No. 114/DB/2022. By the said judgment, claim petition filed by Manu Kumar (respondent no. 1 herein) was allowed and two orders passed by Engineer-in-Chief, Uttarakhand Irrigation Department were set aside. By the first order dated 02.02.2022, year of recruitment of respondent no. 1 on the post of Junior Engineer was changed from 2013-14 to 2014-15 and the date of his promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) was altered from 24.02.2014 to 01.07.2014. By the second order dated 02.02.2022, respondent no. 1 was brought down in the final seniority list of Junior Engineers, issued on 30.12.2017, from serial number 510 to serial number 859A. These two orders have been set aside by learned Tribunal. Relevant extract of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:- “8. Having remained complacent for a good number of years, private respondents (not turned up, despite service of notices upon them) cannot turn around and say that notwithstanding their inaction, they should be kept above the petitioner in the long standing seniority list. The benefits which have accrued to the petitioner, cannot now be disturbed or interfered with. In other words, a settled state of affairs cannot be unsettled now. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Courts. Present petition should, therefore, meet the same fate as was met by those whose seniority was already settled and the Hon’ble Courts did not interfere in the same. Order accordingly. 9. The claim petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 02.02.2022 (Annexure: 17 colly) are set aside and amendment to the seniority list pursuant to these orders is also quashed. No order as to costs. 10. It is made clear that the Tribunal has decided present petition only on the premise that normally long standing seniority should not be unsettled. The Tribunal has not gone into other legal aspects of the case.” 2. Learned State Counsel contended that respondent no. No order as to costs. 10. It is made clear that the Tribunal has decided present petition only on the premise that normally long standing seniority should not be unsettled. The Tribunal has not gone into other legal aspects of the case.” 2. Learned State Counsel contended that respondent no. 1 was appointed as Junior Clerk in Uttarakhand Irrigation Department in the year 2001, however, he acquired necessary qualification i.e. Diploma in Civil Engineering during recruitment year 2013-14, therefore, he could not have been promoted as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 24.02.2014, in view of provision contained in Rule 5(2) of U.P. Irrigation Department Civil Engineer (Subordinate) Service Rules, 1992, which provides that only such Group-C employees, who have completed ten years of service and who possess necessary educational qualification for appointment as Junior Engineer on the first day of year of recruitment, shall be considered for promotion. He submits that recruitment year means a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of July of a calendar year, therefore, respondent no. 1 could have been considered for promotion as Junior Engineer, only during recruitment year 2014-15. Thus, he submits that the competent authority was justified in changing the year of recruitment and the date of promotion of respondent no. 1, therefore, consequent revision, in the seniority list by the Appointing Authority, could not have been interfered with by learned Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 contended that the date of promotion of his client could not have been interfered with, based on a complaint made by some Junior Engineers appointed by direct recruitment, especially, when such complaint was made seven years after promotion of respondent no. 1. He further submitted that seniority list was finalized by the competent authority after considering objections received from members of service in respect of tentative seniority list, therefore, interference with the final seniority list by the Engineer-in-Chief is unwarranted and illegal. He also contended that the final seniority list issued by competent authority on 30.12.2017 was not challenged by complainants before any judicial forum, therefore, Engineer-in-Chief could not have reviewed the seniority list after its finalization. 4. It is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 has been promoted as Additional Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 05.11.2018 based on his ranking in final seniority list, issued on 30.12.2017. 4. It is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 has been promoted as Additional Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 05.11.2018 based on his ranking in final seniority list, issued on 30.12.2017. This indicates that seniority list issued in 2017 was treated as final and promotions were made based on said seniority list. 5. Learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by respondent no. 1 and set aside the orders dated 02.02.2022, by holding that settled seniority cannot be unsettled after long lapse of time. 6. It is settled position in law that belated challenge to promotion/seniority has to be rejected, as it seeks to disturb the vested right of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion, which have accrued to them during the intervening period. In the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa and others, (2010) 12 SCC 471 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “18. The question of entertaining the petition disputing the long-standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra (1974) 1 SCC 317 considered the effect of delay in challenging the promotion and seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should approach the court just after accrual of the cause of complaint. While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, particularly in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [ (1969) 1 SCC 110 ], wherein it has been observed that the principle on which the court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay, is that the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in filing the writ petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for delay. The Court further observed as under : “7. … The party claiming fundamental rights must move the Court before other rights come into existence. The action of courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of the person moving the Court.” 7. The Court further observed as under : “7. … The party claiming fundamental rights must move the Court before other rights come into existence. The action of courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of the person moving the Court.” 7. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India, (1976) 1 SCC 599 , where it is held that raking up old matters like seniority after a long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should be given a quietus after lapse of some time. 8. In the case of H.S. Vankani and others v. State of Gujarat & others, (2010) 4 SCC 301 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has sounded a word of caution against unsettling the settled seniority list. In the case of K.R. Mudgal and Others v. R.P. Singh and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 531 , has held as under:- “2.…A Government servant who is appointed to any post ordinarily should at least after a period of 3 or 4 years of his appointment be allowed to attend to the duties attached to his post peacefully and without any sense of insecurity. It is unfortunate that in this case the officials who are appellants before this Court have been put to the necessity of defending their appointments as well as their seniority after nearly three decades. This kind of fruitless and harmful litigation should be discouraged. 7....Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst the government servants created by the writ petitions filed after several years as in this case. It is essential that anyone who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the court as early as possible as otherwise in addition to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the government servants there would also be administrative complications and difficulties. Unfortunately in this case even after nearly 32 years the dispute regarding the appointment of some of the respondents to the writ petition is still lingering in this Court. Unfortunately in this case even after nearly 32 years the dispute regarding the appointment of some of the respondents to the writ petition is still lingering in this Court. In these circumstances we consider that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on the ground of laches.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the view taken by learned Tribunal that settled seniority could not have been unsettled, cannot be faulted. Even otherwise also, while finalizing seniority list, Appointing Authority exercises the power available to him under Uttarakhand Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002. Rule 9 of the said Rules is extracted below:- “9. Preparation of seniority list – (1) As soon as may be after appointments are made to a service, the appointing authority shall prepare a tentative seniority list of the persons appointed substantively to the service in accordance with the provisions of these rules. (2) The tentative seniority list shall be circulated amongst the persons concerned inviting objections, by a notice of reasonable period, which shall not be less than seven days from the date of circulation of the tentative seniority list. (3) No objections against the vires or validity of these rules shall be entertainable. (4) The appointing authority shall, after disposing of the objection by a reasoned order, issue a final seniority list. (5) It shall not be necessary to prepare a seniority list of the cadre to which appointments are made only by promotion from a single feeding cadre.” 10. A conjoint reading of sub-rules (1) (2) & (3) of Rule 9 of the Seniority Rules indicates that before finalizing a seniority list, the Appointing Authority has to consider and decide the objections received against tentative seniority list. Thus, the Appointing Authority performs quasi judicial function. 11. It is settled position in law that a statutory authority, exercising quasi judicial function, cannot review his order in the absence of any enabling provision in the statute. The Seniority Rules, 2002 do not contain any enabling provision for review. Thus, the Engineer-in-Chief, who had finalized the seniority list in 2017, could not have exercised power of review for unsettling the settled seniority list. Thus, the only remedy available to persons aggrieved by final seniority list was to approach the competent judicial forum. 12. The Seniority Rules, 2002 do not contain any enabling provision for review. Thus, the Engineer-in-Chief, who had finalized the seniority list in 2017, could not have exercised power of review for unsettling the settled seniority list. Thus, the only remedy available to persons aggrieved by final seniority list was to approach the competent judicial forum. 12. For the reasons recorded and in view of the legal position as discussed hereinabove, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment rendered by learned Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.