Writ appeal challenging denial of promotion dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay and laches.

The Appellant was appointed as District Women and Child Development Officer in 1995 and promoted to Deputy Director in 1998.

Although eligible for the post of Joint Director in 2003, he was bypassed for promotion in 2005 and again in 2015. In the 2015 DPC, he was found unsuitable due to a lower ACR grade in 2012, which the Appellant claims was never communicated to him.

He filed WP(S) No. 5054/2018 challenging the 2016 promotion of his juniors.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on June 16, 2025, on the grounds of delay and laches, noting that the petition was filed over two years after the cause of action.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the grounds of delay and laches given the alleged non-communication of adverse ACRs.

2. Whether there exists any palpable infirmity or perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference in an intra-court appeal.

The Court applied the doctrine of "delay and laches," which is founded on public policy to ensure finality in litigation and prevent prejudice to third-party rights.

The Court referenced the principles governing intra-court appeals, emphasizing that interference is only warranted if there are "palpable infirmities" or "perversities" in the impugned order.

Regarding the merits of ACR communication, the Appellant relied on Dev Dutt v. Union of India and R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, which establish that uncommunicated adverse entries cannot be used to deny promotion.

Furthermore, the court noted the Appellant's reference to Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors. v. State of Orissa, which suggests a reasonable period of 3–4 years for challenging seniority/promotion.

The Division Bench reviewed the Single Judge's reasoning, which centered on the fact that the promotion order was issued on January 5, 2016, but the challenge was only mounted on July 31, 2018.

The Court observed that the Appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this delay. It concurred with the Single Judge's assessment that entertaining the challenge years later would "unsettle the settled position" of Respondents No. 3 and 4, who had already been promoted.

The Bench found that despite the Appellant’s arguments regarding the illegality of relying on uncommunicated ACRs and his ongoing representations, these did not override the discretionary bar of laches.

The Court concluded that the Single Judge provided cogent and justifiable reasons, and since there was no evidence of a plain error or perversity, the high threshold for interfering in an intra-court appeal was not met.

The Court answered the issues in the negative, finding no merit in the appeal. The writ appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.