JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner who had been working in the college from 1.7.1972 was selected for appointment by the Committee of Management along with respondent No. 4 for two different posts. Pursuant to such selection by a letter dated 22.11.1972 approval for both the appointments was sought from the District Inspector of Schools by the Committee of Management. By an order dated 30.11.1972, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. On receipt of the said approval, the Committee of Management had issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 1.12.1972. Pursuant to which, he joined on 1.12.1972. The Committee of Management while issuing order of appointment to the petitioner had also addressed letter to the District Inspector of Schools on 1.12.1972, informing him that by letter dated 22.11.1972, the Committee of Management had sought for approval of both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, but only approval of the petitioner has been received. Therefore, approval in respect to respondent No. 4 may also be sent. By an order dated 1.12.1972, the District Inspector of Schools had approved appointment of respondent No. 4. Having received such approval, appointment letter was issued on 1.12.1972 to the respondent No. 4, who Joined on the same day.
2. After such Joining, seniority was fixed according to the rules taking appointment to have taken effect on 1.12.1972 and the respondent No. 4 was placed above the petitioner in the seniority list. Subsequently, the petitioner had prayed for salary for the period between 1.7.1972 till 30.11.1972. The same having refused, he made a representation and while deciding the said representation, a report was sought for. From the said report for the first time, the petitioner alleges to have come to learn that the date of approval of appointment was accorded on 30.11.1972. Therefore, he sought for alteration of the seniority list on the basis of such approval. The same was refused by the management as well as by the Deputy Director of Education Vth Region, Varanasi. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.
3. Sri G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision in the case of Lalitmohon Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools. 1979 ALJ 1025, contends that in para 11 of the said judgment, the date of approval is the date for the purposes of counting seniority. Therefore, the date of issue of appointment letter and joining is immaterial. The appointment of the petitioner having been approved on 30.11.1972 and that of respondent No. 4 having been approved on 1.12.1972, the petitioner should be treated as senior. However, he very fairly conceded that if both the appointments are taken to be on 1.12.1972, in that event the petitioner will be Junior to respondent No. 4. Therefore, so far as fixation of seniority presuming the date of appointment as welt as approval on 1.12.1972 appears to be correct, but according to him, on the basis of ratio decided in the case of Lalitmohan Mishra (supra), the date of approval of the petitioner being 30.11.1972, he is to be treated to be senior to respondent No. 4.
4. The respondent No. 4 in the counter-affidavit had pleaded laches on the part of the petitioner, since the claim was lodged after 20 years.
5. After having heard Sri G. K. Singh, it appears that the contention of respondent No. 4 was that there was laches on the part of the petitioner may be sound. Though technically as pointed out by Sri Singh that the petitioner did not have knowledge of the date of approval till the time he has explained, it is very difficult to avoid such a situation after such a long lapse of time. Even if the petitioner is ignorant or not aware of the fact, still then, his conduct attracts the application of principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. If he was serious about his right, he should have been diligent to find out the same. The long silence on the part of the petitioner pre-supposes lack of diligence. Inasmuch as he had never attempted to ascertain the situation for 20 years. He had accepted the position and acted upon the same. Now it is not open to him to reopen the case. Then again there is a period of limitation provided in clause (f) of Regulation 3 (1) Chapter II of the regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act. On the expiry thereof a right has been accrued to the respondent No. 4 which cannot now be taken away.
6. At the same time, it appears from the record that approval was sought for both the persons by the same letter dated 27.11.1972 and only approval of one person had come which having been pointed out was granted immediately. Such a case presupposes that approval of only one person to the exclusion of the other was given through inadvertants or mistake though such a situation is not reflected in the order of approval accorded to the petitioner and respondent No. 4, which were issued separately through two different orders. But in view of the fact that immediately on receipt of letter dated 1.12.1972 addressed by the Committee of Management the District Inspector of Schools had issued order of approval on the same date. The appointment letter was issued on the same date and joining had also taken effect on the same date.
7. Thus when the situation was allowed to continue for 20 years, it would not be wise at this stage to re-open said issue. Though erudite and attractive argument was advanced by Sri Singh, but on the ground stated above I am unable to accept his contention.
8. In the result writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs.