IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 6087/2008 Reserved on: 21.7.2010 Decided on : 6.8.2010 _____________________________________________ Madan Lal Chopra. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondent No.1. Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate vice Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate for respondent No.2. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as Driver in the Industries Department in the month of November, 1964. He was appointed as Driver in the General Administration Department on 22.1.1972 vide Annexure A-2. He joined his duties on 31.1.1972. He was confirmed on 31.10.1977. He has assailed the seniority list issued on 17.4.1996 whereby he has been ranked junior to respondent No.2. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2. Mr. S.K. Sood has strenuously argued that since his client has joined on 31.1.1972 and respondent No.2 joined on 1.2.1972, he should have been placed higher in the seniority list issued on 17.4.1996. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Kiran Dhiman have vehemently argued that the seniority has been assigned on the basis of merit list drawn in the General Administration Department. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 5. First provisional seniority list was circulated by the General Administration Department on 19.7.1977 and thereafter, after considering the representation, the final seniority list was drawn on 4.4.1988. Thereafter again provisional seniority list, as it stood on 1.12.1995, was issued and after considering the objections, it was finalized on 17.4.1996. Petitioner has not assailed the provisional seniority list, as it stood on 1.10.1987, and final seniority list issued on 4.4.1988. He ought to have assailed the seniority list issued on 4.4.1988. He has laid challenge for the first time to the seniority list issued on 17.4.1996 by way of present petition. Rather he had made first representation against the seniority list dated 17.4.1996 only on 29.6.1999, which stood rejected on 24.8.1999. 6. The records qua the proceedings of the appointment were called for by the Court. A bare perusal of the records reveals that petitioner ranked below respondent No.2 at the time of making 3 appointment to the post of Drivers. In view of this, action of respondent preparing the seniority list on the basis of merit list drawn by the Selection Committee cannot be faulted with. The seniority list can be drawn on the basis of date of appointment, length of service and confirmation as well as on the basis of merit list drawn at the time of selection by the Selection Committee. It has also come in the reply that in the service book, the date of joining of petitioner is 1.2.1972 when the date of joining of respondent No.2 is also 1.2.1972 7. No other point was urged. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 6.8. 2010 *awasthi*