IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 13763 of 2008. Date of decision: 26.4.2011 Om Parkash …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Virender Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G for the respondents. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) It is not disputed that this case is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1171 of 2005 decided on 11.8.2008 wherein identical questions were involved. Operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows:- “The case of the respondents fall squarely under this portion of the judgment rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka 2 and others Vs. Uma Devi and others (206) 4 SCC 1. We may also add that in fact the services of the respondents have already been regularized by the State and the only dispute is with regard to their seniority vis-à-vis the fresh employees who were appointed pursuant to the selections made in the year 1992. The respondents did not set up any claim for wages etc. In view of the facts narrated above we feel that the respondents who had served for a long period of time i.e. almost 10 years, if the period of in-service training is taken into consideration and more than 7 years even if the period of training is excluded, were entitled to be given precedence over fresh recruits especially when they were duly qualified and appointed against vacant posts and there is no complaint that their work was in any way un- satisfactory. However, there is one inequity which has crept in by the order of the learned Tribunal. In terms of the order the persons initially appointed along with the respondents but who opted to appear in the test in the year 1992 will get seniority only from 1992 whereas the respondents shall get seniority from the year 1985. This cannot be permitted. We therefore allow the writ petition of the State only to the limited extent that the seniority of the respondents vis-à-vis the other persons appointed along with them vide letter dated 15th January, 1985 shall be drawn up on the basis of the merit in the training 3 Course. However, the respondents must rank senior to the other persons appointed thereafter on the basis of the test conducted in the year 1992”. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. April 26, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge