1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays that he may be promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary, w.e.f. 11.07.2016 and thereafter to the post of Joint Secretary w.e.f. 16.11.2018.

3. The petitioner superannuated in September, 2019, from the post of Under Secretary.

4. The petitioner in his pleadings admitted that he has been superseded initially in the year 2016, whereby his juniors were promoted.

5. The petitioner did not approach this Court and accepted the said supersession.

6. Those who have been promoted after being superseded, were later on again promoted in the year 2018. The petitioner did not oppose the same also.

7. Only after superannuation in September, 2019, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition in 2026. His initial supersession was of the year 2016. He has approached this Court after ten years of his supersession and six years after his superannuation.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152, has held that if supersession is not challenged within six months to one year, the same should not be entertained by the High Court. It is necessary to quote relevant part of para-2 of the said judgment, which is as follows:-

                  “2. ………………… A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion: It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and trye to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner’s petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant’s petition as well as the appeal.”

9. Thus, in this case, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition due to prolonged delay and latches on part of the petitioner, for the relief which the petitioner is seeking.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.