JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. The petitioner is a Judicial officer holding the post of a District Judge, but currently working as Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) to his Excellency the Governor of Jharkhand. 2. In this Writ petition the petitioner challenges Memo No. 3489/Apptt. dt. 18.09.2019 (Annexure-10) rejecting the representation of the petitioner contained in his letter dated 18/20.06.2016 for restoration of his seniority position in the seniority list. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Judicial Magistrate in the State of Jharkhand on 29.05.2002. He was granted his first A.C.P. with effect from 28.05.2007 and second ACP with effect from 29.05.2012 in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division). 4. He was later posted as Judicial Magistrate-cum-Judge In-charge in Civil Court, Pakur on 07.10.2015. 5. At that time he was communicated with an adverse entry for the assessment year 2014-15 vide a letter dt. 31.08.2015 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court of Jharkhand for the period he had worked as judicial Magistrate-cum-Judge In- charge, Civil Court, Deoghar. The said communication mentioned that the petitioner may file a representation for expunction of the adverse entry within two months from the date of receipt of the said letter. 6. The petitioner gave representation on 26.11.2015 (Annexure-2) for expunging the adverse entry which was accepted on 10.02.2016 (Annexure-3) and the adverse entry in the ACR was expunged. 7. In the seniority list of Judicial Officers of Jharkhand dt. 01.08.2015 (Annexure-4), position of the petitioner was at serial no. 243. 8. Cases of promotion of some Judicial Officers to the post of Civil, Judge (Senior Division) were taken up in 2015, but, on account of absence of vigilance clearance in respect of 07 judicial officers including the petitioner, their cases allegedly were not considered. 9. Petitioner contends that without there being any communication of any order of punishment or issuance of show-cause etc., seniority position of the petitioner and 6 other Judicial Officers, for whom vigilance clearance was not obtained, was pushed down in the seniority list published on 03.09.2015. The name of the petitioner, which was at serial no. 243 of the seniority list dt. 01.08.2015, was pushed down to serial no.254 in the seniority list dt. 03.09.2015. (Annexure-5). 10. The name of the petitioner, which was at serial no. 243 of the seniority list dt. 01.08.2015, was pushed down to serial no.254 in the seniority list dt. 03.09.2015. (Annexure-5). 10. After the adverse entry in the ACR of the petitioner for 2014-15 was expunged by the High Court, vigilance clearance was granted and the petitioner was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 20.04.2016 (Annexure-6). Contentions of petitioner 11. Petitioner contends that after grant of promotion pursuant to expunction of adverse remarks, the natural corollary would be restoration of seniority position of the petitioner in the seniority list but this was not done. The petitioner contends that no show cause/explanation was ever called for from the petitioner in the matter of downgrading his seniority position in the civil/seniority list at any point of time. 12. According to the petitioner, the seniority of two other officers, who were similarly placed like him, by name Sri Niraj Kumar Vishwakarma and Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, which was also lowered as was done in the case of the petitioner and who had been given promotion to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division), was restored to their original position, but the petitioner was discriminated against and he was placed in the seniority list dt. 03.12.2019 (Annexure-7) at serial no.185. 13. Petitioner contends that he ought to be placed at serial no. 168A, i.e., above serial no.169 wherein the name of his junior Sri Vishal Srivastava finds mentioned, since Vishal Srivastava was at serial no. 244 of the seniority list of Civil Judge (Junior Division) dt. 01.08.2015 while the petitioner was at serial no. 243. 14. Petitioner contends that he was also promoted as District Judge, on 18.07.2019 (Annexure-8), but, according to the petitioner, his name was put at a position below that of his entitlement in the seniority list. 15. Petitioner had submitted a representation on 18.06.2016 (Annexure-9) to the Registrar General of the High Court praying for restoration of his position in the civil/seniority list, but the same was rejected by memo dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure-10), which is challenged herein. 16. Petitioner contends that he again filed a representation on 17.04.2021 (Annexure-11) for reconsideration of his request for restoration of seniority position in the Civil/seniority list of Judicial Officers of Jharkhand State but nothing was done on that representation. 17. 16. Petitioner contends that he again filed a representation on 17.04.2021 (Annexure-11) for reconsideration of his request for restoration of seniority position in the Civil/seniority list of Judicial Officers of Jharkhand State but nothing was done on that representation. 17. Petitioner contends that he again gave another request for restoration of the seniority position on 11.04.2022 (Annexure-12). 18. There was a memo dt. 10.11.2023 (Annexure-13) indicating roster arrangement of officers of Superior Judicial Service which was circulated among the officers including the petitioner inviting objections within three weeks. 19. In the said roster arrangement, petitioner’s name is mentioned at serial no. 37 but, according to the petitioner, it ought to be above the name of Sri Vishal Shrivastava whose name finds mentioned at serial no. 16. Petitioner contends that he submitted another representation regarding his position in the roster arrangement on 23.11.2023 (Annexure-14) but there was no communication on the same. 20. He has prayed for setting aside memo dt. 18.09.2019 (Annexure-10) rejecting his representation for restoration of his seniority in the seniority list of Judicial Officers and also a direction to the respondents to correct the seniority list by upgrading his position in the manner as was in existence in the civil/seniority list dt. 01.08.2015. The stand of the respondents 21. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit opposing the grant of relief to the petitioner. 22. It is admitted that 7 Judicial Officers including the petitioner had not been promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) on account of absence of vigilance clearance and that the name of the petitioner which was at serial no. 243 of the seniority list dt. 01.08.2015 was pushed down to serial no. 254 in the seniority list dt. 03.09.2015. It is also admitted that in the subsequent seniority list dt. 14.06.2016, his position is shown 14 places below his original position. 23. It is admitted that after the expunction of the adverse entry in the ACR of the petitioner, he was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 20.04.2016. 24. 254 in the seniority list dt. 03.09.2015. It is also admitted that in the subsequent seniority list dt. 14.06.2016, his position is shown 14 places below his original position. 23. It is admitted that after the expunction of the adverse entry in the ACR of the petitioner, he was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 20.04.2016. 24. It is contended that restoration of seniority position of the petitioner was not done on account of the fact that on the basis of seniority, ACRs, Vigilance Report and overall performance, the High Court in administrative exigency promoted 43 officers including the petitioner from the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre to the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 20.04.2016, subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9883 of 2009. 25. It is not denied that the petitioner’s request for restoration of seniority was rejected while the representation of two other officers for restoration of seniority had been allowed and their seniority restored to the original place in the interest of administration on 18.09.2019. 26. It is also stated that petitioner’s representations dt. 17.04.2021 and 11.04.2022 praying for reconsideration of restoration of seniority position in the seniority list of the Judicial Officers of the State are pending consideration before the Court on the Administrative Side and even the representation made by the petitioner regarding roster arrangement is also pending before the Standing Committee. The consideration by the Court 27. We have noted the submissions of petitioner and respondents 1 to 3. 28. We may first point out that the instant Writ Petition has been filed on 02.04.2024 complaining of the rejection of the petitioner’s request for restoration of seniority in the seniority list of Judicial Officers contained in the memo dt. 18.09.2019 (Annexure-10). 29. On 20.04.2016 itself vide Annexure-6 he had been promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) along with 42 others subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9883 of 2009. 30. On 18.06.2016 when the petitioner gave the representation Annexure- 9, he was still a Civil Judge (Senior Division) and he had complained of injustice done to him of lowering his serial no. in the seniority list of Civil Judge (Junior Division). 31. When his representation was rejected on 18.09.2019, petitioner ought to have questioned the same immediately. 32. 30. On 18.06.2016 when the petitioner gave the representation Annexure- 9, he was still a Civil Judge (Senior Division) and he had complained of injustice done to him of lowering his serial no. in the seniority list of Civil Judge (Junior Division). 31. When his representation was rejected on 18.09.2019, petitioner ought to have questioned the same immediately. 32. Thus the petitioner, in effect, is seeking correction of the seniority list published on 03.09.2015 which was carried forward in the subsequent seniority list of Civil Judge (Junior Division) dt. 14.06.2016, in the instant writ petition filed on 02.04.2024, almost nine years after the event. 33. The people who have been given seniority above the petitioner have not been impleaded as parties in the writ petition. Even if they had been impleaded, it would be unjust to deprive them of the rights which have accrued to them, since each such person is entitled to sit back and consider that his promotion affected long time ago would not be set aside after a lapse of a number of years. 34. It may be that the representation given by the petitioner on 18.06.2016 was rejected on 18.09.2019, but the petitioner should have at least then immediately approached this Court for relief, but instead, he had made two more representations on 17.04.2021 (Annexure-11) and 11.04.20222 (Annexure-12) and filed the writ petition only in April, 2024. 35. As held in the case of Rabindra Nath Bose and Others Vs. Union of India and Others , [ (1970) 1 SCCC 84 ] , mere making of representation would not extend the time because there is a limit to the time which can be considered reasonable for making representations. If the Government had turned down one representation, the making of another representation on similar lines would not enable the petitioner to explain the delay. 36. This principle was reiterated in the State of Orissa Vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray and Others , [ (1977) 3 SCC 396 ] , where the Supreme Court denied relief to a person who allowed 11 years to pass before seeking relief regarding seniority. The Supreme Court again held that since the petitioner had allowed 11 years to go by before making a petition for redressing his grievance regarding his promotion, he ought to be denied relief. 37. Similar view was also expressed in the Naresh Kumar Vs. The Supreme Court again held that since the petitioner had allowed 11 years to go by before making a petition for redressing his grievance regarding his promotion, he ought to be denied relief. 37. Similar view was also expressed in the Naresh Kumar Vs. Department of Atomic Energy and Others , [ (2010) 7 SCC 525 ] , where the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court had also resulted in the creation of long settled position in the seniority in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and it was held that disturbing the long settled position adversely would affect several people and, therefore, as held in High Court of M.P.Vs. Mahesh Prakash and Others , [ (1995) 1 SCC 203 ] , delay and laches can be a ground for denying the relief in such cases. 38. It is pointed out by the Supreme Court in H.S. Vankani and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others , [ (2010) 4 SCC 301 ] , seniority once settled is 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 instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. Such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume a lot of time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and Government, driving the parties to acute penury. The Court held that it would consume a lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among the parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest. It, therefore, held that seniority once settled shall not be unsettled. 39. The Court held that it would consume a lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among the parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest. It, therefore, held that seniority once settled shall not be unsettled. 39. Since restoring the seniority of the petitioner at this point of time would result in unsettling the settled seniority of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) which had been fixed on 03.09.2015 and reiterated in the seniority list of 14.06.2016, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches on his part seeking relief in this Court. 40. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.