IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 357/2007 Reserved on:15.10.2008 Decided on:22.10. 2008 Jitender Pal. …Petitioner. Versus Suresh Kumar and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6 Rajiv Sharma, J. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant/Clerk in Civil and Sessions Division, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal-Spiti at Mandi. The appointment letter was offered to the petitioner on 18.12.1995. He joined his duties on 21.12.1995. The tentative seniority list of Junior Assistants/Clerks of Civil and Sessions Division, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal-Spiti at Mandi was circulated on 25/26.7.2000 as it stood on 30.6.2000. He was ranked junior to private respondents No.1 to 4 in the tentative seniority list (Annexure 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 P-3). He made a representation against the seniority list on 28.7.2000. He has primarily averred in his representation that respondents No.1 to 4 were junior to him as Khem Raj had joined his duties on 23.12.1995; Suresh Kumar on 1.1.1996. Similarly, Suresh Singh joined his duties on 23.12.1995 whereas Trilok Singh joined his duties on 22.12.1995. The petitioner was shown at Sr. No.32. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi on 5.12.2003. He made a representation to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 3.1.2004. This representation was rejected by the High Court on 17.12.2004. In the meantime the final seniority list of Junior Assistants/Clerks was circulated on 5.1.2004. He was again shown below respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate has strenuously argued that since the petitioner was appointed before respondents No.1 to 3, he should have been ranked senior to them in the tentative seniority list and final seniority list dated 25/26.7.2000 and 5.1.2004, respectively. He has heavily relied upon sub-rule (3) of rule 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts’ Staff (Recruitment Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for brevity sake) to strengthen his submission. He also contended that his client was more qualified and was senior in age vis-à-vis respondents No.1 to 4. He lastly contended that the petitioner should have been designated as a Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4400-7000 before respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6 has strenuously argued that the petitioner has been recruited by way of direct recruitment and respondents No.1 to 4 were departmental candidates. He also contended that the petitioner had been selected on the basis of separate written test/interview held on 9.9.1995/10.11.1995 3 and respondents were appointed pursuant to selection process held on 27.8.1995. He has strongly relied upon sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rules. Respondents No.1 to 4 were proceeded exparte by this Court on 27.6.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the documents placed on record. It is evident from the perusal of Annexures R-6/A and R-6/B that the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 4 have been appointed by way of two separate selection processes and separate panels were prepared. Respondents No.1 to 4 are departmental candidates. They were made enblock senior to candidates selected by way of direct recruitment. The seniority of these persons was drawn in view of sub rule (1) of rule 14 of the Rules. The most important phrase employed in sub-rule (1) of rule 14 is that the incumbents appointed in a substantiate or officiating capacity in a cadre in the Civil and Sessions Division on the date immediately preceding the date on which these rules came into force shall retain the relative seniority already assigned to them. Since the seniority of the incumbents like respondents No.1 to 4 has been protected, the submission of Mr. Palsara that the case of the petitioner is covered under sub-rule (3) of rule 14 merits rejection. The tentative seniority was circulated on 25/26.7.2000. The petitioner made a representation on 21.8.2000 and the reminder was also sent. The representation was rejected by the learned District and Sessions Judge on 5.12.2003. The final seniority list was also published/circulated on 5.1.2004. He made a representation to Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 3.1.2004. The same was rejected by the High Court on 17.12.2004. The present petition has been filed on 19th March, 2007. 4 The petitioner has not explained the delay in approaching this Court after the rejection of his representation on 5.12.2003 and thereafter after the circulation of the final seniority list on 5.1.2004. It is settled law under service jurisprudence that settled things should not be unsettled, more particularly, when they pertain to seniority. Respondents No.1 to 4 had been granted the pay scale of Rs. 4400-7000 on the basis of the seniority list. The rights which had accrued to respondents No.1 to 4 cannot be disturbed at this stage. There is delay of 3 years after the issuance/circulation of final seniority list and of 7 years after the issuance/ circulation of tentative seniority list. The seniority list was prepared strictly as per the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts’ Staff (Recruitment Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. The fact that the petitioner was appointed before respondents No.1 to 4 on the plain reading of the rules will not advance the case of the petitioner. Moreover, it has already been noticed that the seniority already assigned to respondents No.1 to 4 was protected. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa and another versus State of Punjab and others, (1998) 2 SCC 523 have held that once the seniority has been settled it should not be unsettled after the lapse of reasonable period. Their Lordships have held as under: “It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be re-opened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition.” 5 In view of the aforesaid reasoning there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 22.10.2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*