Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1267 (AP)

B. Ratnamani v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-09-06

K MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : Writ Petition No. 18285 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India “to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (a) declaring the action of the respondents in stalling the promotion orders of the petitioners to the post of Librarian Grade-I in abeyance vide proceedings dated 01.06.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the posts of Librarian Grade-I with all consequential benefits from 07.05.2021 (b) to declare the clarification Memo No. ESE01-LIBRODPL/59/2019-SER-I, dated 13.08.2021 which was issued by the respondents contrary to the well-established settled principles of law as arbitrary and unjust and further set aside the Memo No.ESE01-LIBRODPL/59/2019-SER-I, dated 13.08.2021 and to pass such other and further orders”. Writ Petition No.17667 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India “to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent herein in issuing the impugned proceedings Rc.No.041-A3/2017, dated 03.01.2020 in absorbing the unofficial respondents herein as Grade-II Librarians, who are juniors to the petitioners as per final seniority list of feeder category issued by 2nd respondent on 01.09.2017 in violation of the Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 14 Education (PE.LIB), Department, dated 14.01.2012 and G.O.Ms.No. 37 Education (PE-LIB), Department, dated 24.03.2011 as highly illegal, totally discriminatory, unjust, unfair against the principles of natural justice and prays to set aside the impugned proceedings No.Rc.No.041-A3/2017, dated 03.01.2020 in absorbing the adhoc promotes in the higher cadre post of Librarian Grade-II in Zone-II and prays to set aside the Proceedings Rc.No.041-A3/2017, dated 03.01.2020 of 2nd respondent with further direction to promote all these petitioners on par with the unofficial respondents to the higher cadre post of Librarian Grade-II with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority on par with their immediate juniors as per Zonal final seniority list dated 01.09.2017 and to pass such other and further orders”. 2. Heard Mr. M. Srikanth, learned Counsel representing Mr. P. Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.18285 of 2021 and respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.17667 of 2020; Ms. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-III for the official respondents. 3. 2. Heard Mr. M. Srikanth, learned Counsel representing Mr. P. Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.18285 of 2021 and respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.17667 of 2020; Ms. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-III for the official respondents. 3. These two Writ Petitions arise out of the same issue and therefore are being disposed of by a common order. 4. W.P.No.18285 of 2021 is filed impugning orders keeping in abeyance the orders of promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-I and consequently sought a direction for promotion to the post of Librarian Grade I with all consequential benefits from 07.05.2021. A further prayer is also made to declare the Clarification Memo No. ESE01-LIBRODPL/59/2019-SER-I, dt. 13.08.2021 issued by the Government as arbitrary and unjust and set aside the same. 5. W.P.No.17667 of 2020 has been filed challenging the orders of absorption of Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 by Proceedings Rc.No.041-A3/2017, dt. 03.01.2020. Further, consequential direction is also sought to promote the petitioners on par with the unofficial respondents with all consequential benefits to the post of Librarian Grade II. 6. The Respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 are the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No. 18285/2021. The parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 for the sake of convenience. 7. The facts arising in both the Writ Petitions are that the posts of Librarians in Zilla Grandhalya Samstha were initially governed by the unamended rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.674, dated 21-3-1967. As per the said rules, the unit of appointment indicated in Rule-3A is Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha and the City Grandhalaya Samstha for the post of Librarian Grade-II. The Petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 are working in the post of Librarian Grade-III and they claim that they have been appointed from the year 1986. They also state that they are seniors to the Respondent 3, 4 and 5. It appears that when there were large number of vacancies of Librarian Grade II, Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were temporarily promoted on 15.07.2011, to the said post in the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, pending regular direct recruitment by G.O.Ms.No.37, Education (PE-LIB) Department dated 24.03.2011. They also state that they are seniors to the Respondent 3, 4 and 5. It appears that when there were large number of vacancies of Librarian Grade II, Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were temporarily promoted on 15.07.2011, to the said post in the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, pending regular direct recruitment by G.O.Ms.No.37, Education (PE-LIB) Department dated 24.03.2011. It is the case of the Petitioners in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 that these promotions were only temporary and were given to the Respondents 3, 4 and 5, as at that particular point of time, the unit of appointment was effectively district. 8. It is further submitted that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 14.01.2012 amending Rule-3A of the Library Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No. 674, dated 21.03.1967 making ‘Zone’ as the unit of appointment for the post of Category-II -Librarian Grade-II. It is the case of the Petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 that after amendment, the respondents ought to have been reverted, but unfortunately without reference to the seniority, the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been continued in the post of Librarian Grade-II. It is further contended that the promotions given to the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 by G.O.Ms.No. 37, Education (PE-LIB) Department dated 24.03.2011 was conditional. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that G.O.Ms.No.37 has clearly indicated that the promotions granted were in direct recruitment vacancies and were temporary with a condition that they would be reverted as and when direct recruitment takes place. It is also contended that an undertaking has been given by the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 on promotion. 9. It is contended that a seniority list dated 01.09.2017 has been communicated in the category of Grade-III Librarian in zone-II and in the seniority list, the petitioners figure as seniors to the unofficial respondents. It is also stated that ignoring the said seniority list, the unofficial respondents, who are their juniors are continuing in the post of Grade-II illegally. It is now contended that by the impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2020, the unofficial respondents are now sought to be absorbed as Librarian Grade-II in the vacancies meant for promotion with effect from 2013 to 2015. It is also stated that ignoring the said seniority list, the unofficial respondents, who are their juniors are continuing in the post of Grade-II illegally. It is now contended that by the impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2020, the unofficial respondents are now sought to be absorbed as Librarian Grade-II in the vacancies meant for promotion with effect from 2013 to 2015. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioners that temporary promotions do not confer any right and the absorption now sought to be granted to the unofficial respondents is clearly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the seniority list communicated in the year 2017. 10. The official respondents/ Government has filed its counter in W.P.No.17667 of 2020, wherein it is stated that in view of the large number of vacancies, the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been promoted on ad-hoc basis in the vacancies meant for direct recruitment, as, at that particular point of time, the post of Librarian Grade-II was a district cadre post and since the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were the senior most persons in the said district, they were promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-II. Thereafter the post of Librarian Grade-II was upgraded as zonal post, vide G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 14.01.2012 and in view of the unit of appointment being changed to zone, a zonal seniority list had to be prepared. When certain Librarians Grade-III promoted as Librarian Grade-II on ad-hoc basis were shown as juniors to Librarian Grade-III in zonal seniority list, objections have been raised by the said persons. A request has been made by Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, Librarian Grade-II working on ad-hoc basis in Grade-III to include his name in the seniority list of Librarian Grade-II and thereafter, to consider his case for promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-I. 11. It appears that a clarification was sought from the Government. The Government had issued a clarification dated 10.12.2019 stating that as per clause ‘C’ of Circular Memo No.16, dated 21.04.1999, an employee promoted to a post earmarked for direct recruitment would not commence his probation from the date of his appointment but shall be reckon his seniority only from the date on which he occupies vacancy meant for promotee. The Government had issued a clarification dated 10.12.2019 stating that as per clause ‘C’ of Circular Memo No.16, dated 21.04.1999, an employee promoted to a post earmarked for direct recruitment would not commence his probation from the date of his appointment but shall be reckon his seniority only from the date on which he occupies vacancy meant for promotee. After the said memo, it appears that the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been absorbed into the post of Librarian Grade-II with effect from the date the vacancies meant for promotions have arisen. It is stated that by the time of upgradation of the post of Librarian Grade-II as zonal cadre post, since the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were already attending duties of Librarian Grade-II, they were absorbed into the vacancies meant for promotion and therefore G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 14.01.2012 has not been ignored. 12. The Respondents 4 and 5 have filed counter-affidavit and mainly contended that they have been promoted to the post of Grade-II Librarian on 15.07.2011 on ad-hoc basis and have been continuously working in the said post ever since then. It is stated that though they have been promoted in the year 2011, their promotions have not been challenged by the petitioners, till date. It is further contended that there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioners and that the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2020, which is merely consequential without actually challenging the promotions granted to them. The petitioners were aware that Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 have been working in the promotional posts from 2011 and further absorbed in promotee vacancies in the year 2014 and 2015; but the petitioners have now approached this Court seek to challenge the formal order of absorption. 13. It is further contended that after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.14, dt. 14.01.2012, the petitioners have never sought for issuance of a zonal seniority list and have never objected to their continuation in the post of Librarian Grade.II. The clarification dated 10.12.2019 is clear and that they would be entitled to count their probation from the date of arising of the regular vacancies meant for promotion. The reliance on the seniority list dated 01.09.2017 in the category of Librarian Grade-III is also misplaced and that the seniority in the lower category loses its significance once they have been promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-II. The reliance on the seniority list dated 01.09.2017 in the category of Librarian Grade-III is also misplaced and that the seniority in the lower category loses its significance once they have been promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-II. In the seniority list dated 14.02.2020 issued in the cadre of Librarians Grade-II the Respondent nos. 4 and 5 have been shown at Sl.Nos. 5 and 6 respectively and that this has not been challenged. It is further contended that even though they were promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-I on 07.05.2021, the orders have been kept in abeyance vide proceedings dated 08.05.2021 illegally, which is impugned in W.P.No.18285 of 2021. The Writ Petition filed by the Writ petitioners is bereft of any details as to the date of appointment of the petitioners in the post of Grade-III or their date of absorption into the said post. 14. It is further contended that the post of Librarian Grade-II could not have been made into a zonal category as the consent of the President of India has not been obtained. The main challenge of the Respondent No.4 and 5 in both writs is on the ground of delay and latches. It is contended in W.P.No. 18285 of 2021 that the Director of Public Libraries has no power under the rules to keep an order of promotion already granted in abeyance. It is stated that Rule-23 of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 provide for objections to be raised against promotions. It is further contended that there is no power of review of promotions conferred on the Appointing authority after a period of six months from the date of such order and it is only the Government that can do so for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. 15. It is stated that when a seniority list in the category of Grade-III Librarians has been issued on 27.11.2013, they were not included in the said seniority list as they were working in the post of Grade-II Librarians. It is further contended that in the tentative zonal seniority list of Grade-III Librarians in Zone-II had been communicated on 03.02.2016 in which they were shown in common seniority list. It is further contended that in the tentative zonal seniority list of Grade-III Librarians in Zone-II had been communicated on 03.02.2016 in which they were shown in common seniority list. Assailing the same, they had submitted their objections and the same was disposed of assuring that their seniority in the post of Librarian Grade-II would be counted for further promotion as Librarians Grade-I and that no injustice or inconvenience would be caused to them. They reiterate that since no objections have been made to their promotions and continuance to the post of Librarian Grade-II, no objections could now be raised after 9 years. 16. It is also stated that though no interim directions have been granted in W.P.No.17667 of 2020, the petitioners have exerted political influence and have got their promotion orders kept in abeyance. It is further contended that the rule prescribes a minimum service of two years in the post of Librarian Grade-II for being further promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-I. The petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 are working in the post of Librarian Grade-III and are not eligible to be further promoted as Librarian Grade-I as they do not have eligibility. The Government has issued the impugned Memo dated 13.08.2021 directing recasting of the entire seniority list in the cadre of Librarians Grade-III without giving any notice to the affected parties and is not supported by any rules. 17. In view of the above facts, it is now to be considered as to whether the Petitioners in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 are entitled to challenge the orders of absorption of the Respondents 3 to 5. 18. It may be noticed that at no point of time have the Petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 objected or represented against the continuance of Respondents 3 to 5 in the higher category of Librarian Grade-II. It is clear from the facts in the present Writ Petition that the unofficial respondents have been continuing in the higher category post of Librarian Grade-II from 2011 onwards. 19. Mrs. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 has vehemently argued that the petitioners have challenged the orders of absorption dated 03.01.2020 and that there is no delay on their part. 19. Mrs. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 has vehemently argued that the petitioners have challenged the orders of absorption dated 03.01.2020 and that there is no delay on their part. It is further argued that the petitioners need not challenge the orders of promotion but can challenge the absorption orders as it affects them and it cannot be construed that there was any delay or latches on their part. The petitioners specifically aver that the present action is wholly arbitrary, since it ignores seniors, who have been working from a long time and they are being denied their just promotion. 20. On the other hand, the respondents contend that when the orders of promotion have not been challenged, the orders of absorption and seniority are merely consequential. It is further argued that the petitioners cannot seek to be promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-I, since they are ineligible as they are working in the post of Librarian Grade-III. It is contended that petitioners would have to first seek promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-II and only after working for a minimum period of two years, could they be treated as eligible to the post of Librarian Grade-I. It is specifically contended that as a matter of record, no objections or even a representation has been made challenging the promotions of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In support of their contention for the proposition that delay and latches would be fatal in claims for promotions and seniority, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 rely on the catena of decisions viz., in Amarjeet Singh and Others v. Devi Ratan and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 417 ”, wherein the Division Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:- “28. In the instant case, promotions had been made by two different DPCs held on 19-12-1998 and 22-1-1999. Both DPCs had made promotions under different Rules on different criterion and their promotions had been made with retrospective effect with different dates notionally. In the writ petition before the High Court, the promotion of the appellants had not been under challenge. The seniority which is consequential to the promotions could not be challenged without challenging the promotions. Challenging the consequential order without challenging the basic order is not permissions (Vide P. Chitharanja Memon v. A. Balakrishnan). 29. In the writ petition before the High Court, the promotion of the appellants had not been under challenge. The seniority which is consequential to the promotions could not be challenged without challenging the promotions. Challenging the consequential order without challenging the basic order is not permissions (Vide P. Chitharanja Memon v. A. Balakrishnan). 29. In Roshan Lal v. International Airport Authority of India the petitions were primarily confined to the seniority list and this Court held that challenge to appointment orders could not be entertained because of inordinate delay and in absence of the same, validity of consequential seniority could not be examined. In such a case, a party is under a legal obligation to challenge the basic order and if and only if the same is found to be wrong, consequential orders may be examined.” 21. Therefore, it is categorically held that seniority which is consequential to the promotions could not be challenged without challenging the promotions. Further “Shiba Shankar Mohapatra V. State of Orissa and others, (2010) 12 SCC 471 ” the Division Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R.Mudgal, this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has by furnishing satisfactory explanation”. 22. It is very clear that for the proposition that claim against seniority and promotions should be made within 3 years in the light of above decision. 23. In “Dr.Akshay Bisoi and Another. Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others, (2018) 3 SCC 391 , wherein the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “20. In holding that an unexpected delay on the part of the petitioners would disentitle them to relief, we place reliance on a judgment of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari”. The learned Chief Justice, after adverting to the settled position of law in that regard, observed thus: (SCC pp.185-86, paras 27-28). “27. In holding that an unexpected delay on the part of the petitioners would disentitle them to relief, we place reliance on a judgment of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari”. The learned Chief Justice, after adverting to the settled position of law in that regard, observed thus: (SCC pp.185-86, paras 27-28). “27. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled….the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer…. 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”. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “B.S.Bajwa and Another. Vs. State of Punjab and others, (1998) 2 SCC 523 , where in it is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. In “H.S.Vankani and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 301 ”, wherein, it was held that the seniority once settled in decisive in the upward march in one’s chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instils confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues, which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. Therefore, it is silent that there is no explanation as to why the promotions given to the petitioners in W.P.No.18285 of 2021 have not been ever objected earlier. In “State of Uttaranchal Vs. Shiva Charan Singh Bandari, 2013 (12) SCC 129” and “Union of India and others Vs. Therefore, it is silent that there is no explanation as to why the promotions given to the petitioners in W.P.No.18285 of 2021 have not been ever objected earlier. In “State of Uttaranchal Vs. Shiva Charan Singh Bandari, 2013 (12) SCC 129” and “Union of India and others Vs. C.Girija, (2019) 15 SCC 633 ”, wherein it was held that representation relating to a stale claim would not give rise to a fresh cause of action and further held that mere filing of representation cannot also revive a dead claim. Therefore, the claim of both the petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 and the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.18285 of 2021 cannot be entertained. 25. At the time of admission, an interim direction to maintain status quo has been granted in W.P.No.18285 of 2021. It is to be noticed that the petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 have not objected to the continuation of the unofficial Respondents in higher category of Librarian Grade-II. It would also have to be particularly noticed that the continuation was not for a short time but for a considerable period of almost 9 years. When a provisional seniority list in 2016 was issued, objections seem to have been submitted by the Respondents 4 and 5pointing out that they have been promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-II prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 14.01.2012 and that it would cause injustice to ignore their 4 ½ years of service in the post of Librarian Grade-II, which would affect their prospect of further promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-I. The 2nd Respondent in his final seniority list dated 18.03.2016 has stated that the seniority of ad-hoc promotes would be continued for the purpose of their further promotion to the post of Grade-I Librarian. The said seniority list and the disposal of the objection by the said order is not disputed. Petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 kept quiet for about nine years and sought to challenge the promotions of unofficial respondents at the time of their promotion to the category of Librarian Grade-I. 26. It is now well settled that delay and latches in service matters would be fatal. In the case of “Bichitrananda Behera Vs State of Orissa and others” (Civil Appeal No.6664 of 2023, Dated 11.01.2023), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that a belated claim in service matters ought not to be entertained. It is now well settled that delay and latches in service matters would be fatal. In the case of “Bichitrananda Behera Vs State of Orissa and others” (Civil Appeal No.6664 of 2023, Dated 11.01.2023), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that a belated claim in service matters ought not to be entertained. The delay and latches would amount to acquiescence in certain cases. Though it is averred that it is only the orders of absorption that has been challenged; in the main prayer, the petitioners had also sought for promotion on par with Respondents 4 and 5. The challenge to the absorption orders would be meaningless unless the Petitioners are granted promotion on par with the Respondents 4 and 5. Here, it is clear that the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the promotion orders, or continuation of unofficial respondents in the higher post from the year 2011 or their placement in promotee vacancies in 2014 and 2015. The orders of absorption dated 03.01.2020 could not have been challenged without actually challenging the promotion granted to Respondents 4 and 5. In essence what is being challenged is seniority granted to the Respondents, which was merely consequential on their promotion and absorption into promotee vacancies. The entire Writ Petition is silent as to why the promotions of the unofficial respondents had not ever been challenged or even a representation was made against them. It is also clear that the official respondents are taking contrary stand. 27. Earlier, the 2nd Respondent has filed counter in favour of the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.17667 of 2020. Thereafter in W.P.No. 18285 of 2021, the 2nd respondent now seeks to state that the promotion granted to the Respondents 4 and 5 was not proper. 28. A perusal of the impugned order dt. 08.05.2021 in W.P.No. 18285 of 2021 would reveal that no reasons are assigned for keeping the promotion of the respondents in abeyance. It is stated that after W.P.No.17667 of 2020 was filed and no interim directions have been issued by the court, some of the Librarians Grade-III had represented against the absorption and therefore the promotions were kept in abeyance and a clarification was sought from the Government. It reveals that the Government has clarified the same by Memo dated 13.08.2021 and directed the recasting of the entire seniority list. It reveals that the Government has clarified the same by Memo dated 13.08.2021 and directed the recasting of the entire seniority list. The Government has not put the affected parties on notice before issuing the said memo and this amounts to a gross violation of principles of natural justice as well as A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules. Further, no proper or cogent reasons have been recorded. The said Memo does not disclose whether the Government had noticed the fact that the Respondents 4 and 5 were working from 2011 continuously without objections from any quarter. It is clear from the counter that till the W.P.No.17667 of 2020 has been filed, no representation or objection has ever been received. The stand of the 2nd Respondent is unsustainable. It is not clear as to why the promotion of the Respondents 4 and 5 had been kept in abeyance when there are no interim directions granted by this Court in W.P.No.17667 of 2020. 29. In view of the specific admission that no representations or objections have ever been received against the promotion of the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 in Librarian Grade-II, no representation can be entertained against their promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-I. It is clear that the petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 have never filed a claim for review of promotions nor have they objected to the Respondents 4 and 5 being placed in seniority list of Librarians Grade-II. Further, since the petitioners are working in lower post of Librarian Grade-III, they cannot claim for promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-I. It is well settled that delay and latches are important factors to consider when exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court should not grant extraordinary relief to a petitioner who is guilty of delay or latches, or who approaches the writ court belatedly or sleeps over their rights for a considerable period of time. This has allowed third party rights to be crystallised and therefore the W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 is liable to be dismissed. 30. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the material on record and considering the submissions of both the counsel, the W.P.No.17667 of 2020 is dismissed. This has allowed third party rights to be crystallised and therefore the W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 is liable to be dismissed. 30. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the material on record and considering the submissions of both the counsel, the W.P.No.17667 of 2020 is dismissed. The impugned order dated 08.05.2021 in W.P.No. 18285 of 2021 and the Clarification Memo No. ESE01-LIBRODPL/59/2019-SER-I, dated 13.08.2021 are hereby set aside and W.P.No.18285 of 2021 is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.