JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to take steps regarding promotion of petitioner on the post of Administrative Officer, Group A, in the respondent company as per seniority, and as per the select list for promotion exercise of the year 2015-2016. 2. Petitioner has placed on record the order dated 21.05.2022, passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 243 of 2022 (Annexure-1). Petitioner withdrew the said petition with liberty to file a writ petition with better particulars. 3. Petitioner was appointed on 04.04.1990, as per the appointment letter (Annexure-2), on the post of Probationary Development Officer in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Petitioner has placed on record a Circular Letter dated 10.09.2008 (Annexure-3) collectively, wherein it is stated that the next promotional post for Probationary Development Officer is a Group-A post. After his appointment in the year 1990, and rendering 25 years of service, there were vacancies for general class Group-A officer, and petitioner had applied for promotion to said Group-A post. Petitioner secured highest marks in the performance promotions exercise 2015 to 2016. However, his candidature was rejected. Petitioner has also placed on record appreciation letter dated 09.04.2013 received by him while he was working as a Development Officer for the year 2012-2013 (Annexure-4). Petitioner has also placed on record a Circular dated 07.06.2013 (Annexure-5), which was issued regarding promotion of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. Vide letter dated 28.01.2016 (Annexure-6) respondent No. 3 asked the department to give confidential report of the Development Officers, Grade I (Marketing) for the purpose of selection in Class One Grade in the respondent company. 4. Petitioner appeared in the interview held on 22.03.2016. As per the letter (Annexure-7), petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. He placed on record the performance list of 2015-2016 (Annexure-8). As per the said performance list, petitioner secured highest marks as Development Officer, Grade I (Marketing). According to the petitioner, he had secured 56 marks out of 72 marks, and the selected candidates of general category secured lesser marks than the petitioner. The marks tally is as under: A. Ramesh Chandra Maurya 54 out of 72 S.C. candidate B. Rakesh Kumar Sharma 53.33 out of 72 Gen. candidate C. N.S. Tyagi 51.67 out of 72 Gen. candidate 5. The marks tally is as under: A. Ramesh Chandra Maurya 54 out of 72 S.C. candidate B. Rakesh Kumar Sharma 53.33 out of 72 Gen. candidate C. N.S. Tyagi 51.67 out of 72 Gen. candidate 5. Petitioner thereafter sent a letter dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure-9) to respondent No. 3 asking therein as to why he has not been selected, and persons junior to the petitioner have been found fit for promotion. Petitioner sent a representation on 04.05.2016 (Annexure-10) through mail addressed to respondent No. 3 for redressal of his grievances. Reminders dated 21.07.2017 and 22.11.2018 were sent by the petitioner addressed to respondent No. 2 (Annexures-11 and 12), as well. Thereafter, since 2019 and 2020, petitioner personally visited the offices of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in order to resolve his grievance, but no action was taken. 6. Respondent No. 4 replied on 15.12.2021 (Annexure-13) to the representation sent by the petitioner, shifting liability on other respondents. Lastly, petitioner sent representations dates 28.12.2021, 23.02.2022, 12.03.2022 (Annexures-14, 15 and 16 respectively) to respondent No. 3, but to no avail. Feeling aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 7. On notice of this petition, counter-affidavit has been filed by Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that certain representations were received by the office of the respondent company, and all the representations were considered as per the Head Office departmental note (Annexure C.A.-1), and eventually, the following prior and after modifications were made in the scores : PRIOR MODIFICATION (as produced by the petitioner Mr. Sunehri Lal) S No Name of Candidate Marks for service out of 20 Academic (Marks out of 10) SPI (Mark out of 08) Percentage/ Amount of Operating Surplus (Marks out of 08) Cost Margin (Marks out of 08) Marks Obtained for Rural & SocialSector (Out of 08) Total Mark (Out of 72) 1 Ramesh Chandra Maurya 20.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 2.00 8.00 54.00 2 Rakesh Kumar Sharma 20.00 10.00 8.00 6.67 0.67 8.00 53.33 3 N.S. Tyagi 20.00 7.00 8.00 3.33 5.33 8.00 51.67 AFTER MODIFICATION 1 Ramesh Chandra Maurya 20.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 3.33 8.00 55.33 2 Rakesh Kumar Sharma 20.00 10.00 8.00 6.67 0.67 8.00 53.33 3 N.S. Tyagi 20.00 7.00 8.00 5.33 5.33 8.00 53.67 8. Details of performance of the petitioner in his promotion exercise for the year 2015-2016, in para 04 of the counter-affidavit, is as under: Total vacancies declared 03 for general candidates Total applicants from Regional Officer, Dehradun 15 Maximum marks scored 80.83 Marks scored by petitioner 75 9. In the counter-affidavit it has also been stated that after considering the representations, based on the final ranking list and declared vacancies, the following candidates from Regional Office, Dehradun were ranked on merit after interview and got promoted to the cadre of Administrative Officer under the promotion exercise 2015-2016 : Sl. No. Name Marks scored 1. Ramesh Chandra Maurya 80.83 2. N.S. Tyagi 80.17 3. Rakesh Kumar Sharma 79.40 10. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that petitioner was placed in the 6th position, having secured 75 marks which were below the cut off marks of 79.40 secured by Rakesh Kumar Sharma, hence, the name of petitioner did not figure in the promotion list. The final promotion list has been placed on record as Annexure C.A.-2. 11. A perusal of Annexure C.A.-2 filed along with the counter-affidavit shows that at page 97, in promotional area of Dehradun, the Development Officers, Grade I, namely, Ramesh Chandra Maurya, N.S. Tyagi and Rakesh Kumar Sharma have been ranked in order of merit, and declared qualified for promotion to the cadre of Administrative Officer against the vacancies declared for the year 2015-2016. Finally, it has been stated that after the promotions were made in the year 2015-2016, the writ petition was filed in the year 2022, i.e., after seven years, and as such the same is time barred. 12. In response to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner has filed his rejoinder, and in his rejoinder the petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that the revised merit list was prepared, and marks were awarded to Ramesh Chandra Maurya, N.S. Tyagi and Rakesh Kumar Sharma, and petitioner had secured 75 marks, which were lower than the cut off marks secured by Rakesh Kumar Sharma. 13. 13. Since this fact has not been disputed by the petitioner that the marks secured by the petitioner were lower than the cut off marks secured by the last selected candidate, and also the fact that he did not get the qualifying marks against the three vacancies, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay of seven years. Even if seven years delay is not to be taken into account, since the petitioner has not disputed the marks awarded to the selected candidates after revision of marks, and he had secured lower marks than the last selected candidate, i.e, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, there is no merit in this petition. 14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.