' The petitioners have challenged the order of respondent No, 16, dated 28-4-1987 through this Constitutional petition.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners, who are 24 in number as well as respondents Nos. 4 to 14 were all serving in the Railway as Guards. The grievance of the petitioners is that their colleagues respondents Nos. 4 to 14 were illegally appointed, therefore, they could not compete with the petitioners in the matters of seniority etc. It is added that the petitioners have attended the Walton Training Institute ahead of the respondents Nos. 4 to 14, therefore, they were entitled to promotion earlier to them. The petitioners after agitating the matter for some time at the Departmental level with respondents Nos. 1 to 3 proceeded to serve the said respondents with a grievance notice dated 30-11-1977. Thereafter filed the grievance petition on 15-12-1977. The petition was partially allowed by respondent No, 15 vide order dated 7-11-1978. The petitioners felt fully satisfied but the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 filed an appeal before respondent No, 16 who accepted the appeal vide his order dated 28-4-1987 and dismissed the grievance petition of the present petitioners as time- barred. The petitioners have now challenged this order. The petition was admitted to regular hearing but none of the respondents have appeared in spite of service, therefore, they are proceeded ex parte.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition argued that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the appointment orders of respondents Nos. 4 to 14 and they were aggrieved only when the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 tried to absorb them in the cadre disturbing the seniority of the petitioners. It is added that the respondent No, 16 wrongly and illegally held that the petition was time-barred.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record. The grievance of the petitioners came into existence with the appointment of respondents Nos. 4 to 14 and it is for this reason that they prayed for declaration that orders of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 making direct recruitment in Grade-II be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioners, therefore, now cannot be permitted to argue that they could not have challenged the recruitment of respondents Nos. 4 to
14. This is merely an afterthought and the purpose is to wriggle out the law of limitation. This is not all. The last part of the prayer of the petition reads as under:- "It is further prayed that the respondents Nos. 4 to 14 if retained in service be declared as guard Grade-I instead of Grade-II vide letter No, 220-B/209/II (E-VI), dated 20-11-1973 and junior to the petitioners."
This is alternative prayer and they have challenged the letter dated 20-11-1973 while the grievance notice was issued on 30-11-1977 and the petition was filed on 15-12-1977 therefore, it was hopelessly time-barred. This is not all. The petitioners have neither placed on record of this writ petition grievance notice nor Exh. P.3, which according to the learned counsel is the basis of their claim. The document Exh. P.3 according to the judgment of respondent No, 16 is dated 20-11-1973. The same is the date given in the prayer of the petitioners in the grievance petition as reproduced above. It seems that these documents were withheld purposely to mislead the Court. This is misconduct of very serious nature and the petitioners cannot be allowed any relief with this conduct.
' The result is that this petition is dismissed.