Superintending Engineer with effect from 17.09.2001 by virtue of a promotion order made in 2008. The petitioner’s grievance is that some of his juniors were considered even though they did not fulfil the basic eligibility criteria, i.e., did not fulfil the bench mark of possessing 5 ACRs reflecting ‘Very Good’ performance for the previous five years. The petitioner has approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.(C) No. 7576/2013 which was disposed of with a direction that his representation be taken into consideration. Petitioner has placed on record the representation dated 11.11.2013— which presumably was the one preferred by him before approaching this Court earlier. It is evident from the factual matrix that the petitioner’s cause of action arose sometime in September, 2008 when his juniors were allegedly wrongly promoted even though he too fulfilled the same bench mark and was wrongly excluded. His grievance is that some of them, like him, did not possess the five ‘Very Good’ ACRs necessary for being promoted. However, the petitioner did not agitate his grievance and appears to have approached the respondents with a representation and did nothing more. He woke up and approached the Court in 2014 which led to a direction for consideration of his representation. The belated claim— even if it were to be considered from 2014, i.e., after 6 years of cause of action, cannot, in these circumstances, be entertained.
