IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5936 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 02, 2010 Sh. Ram Singh Parmar Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. K. C. Sankhyan, Advocate, vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has assailed the seniority list issued by the Government on 31.3.1999 (w.e.f. 1.12.1998). The list pertains to Technical Assistant/Statistical Assistant/ Investigators. Petitioner is aggrieved of the fact that private respondent No. 3 Sh. Pankaj Sharma, who is junior to him has been placed at a higher position in the seniority list. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The private respondent in Para No. 5 of the reply has stated as under:- “5. That the original application is also hit by delay and laches and is grossly barred by limitation also. The seniority list of Technical Assistant, redesignated as Assistant Research Officer, was circulated on June 26, 1985, annexure R-3/2, wherein replying respondent and applicant were assigned positions at Sr. No. 41 and 43 respectively. Another tentative seniority list was circulated on May 22, 1986, annexure R-3/3, wherein replying respondent and applicant were assigned position at Sr. No. 39 and 41 respectively. Still another tentative seniority list, annexure R-3/4 was circulated on October 7, 1988 wherein replying respondent and applicant were placed at Sr. No. 30 and 32 respectively. This seniority list was finalized on November 22, 1988, annexure R-3/5 herewith. Thereafter another tentative seniority list, annexure R-3/6 was circulated on March 23, 1990, wherein again replying respondent was placed above the applicant. Thereafter, vide final seniority list circulated on October 12, 1990, annexure R-3/7, the replying respondent was again placed senior to applicant at Sr. No. 24 as against the position assigned to applicant at Sr. No. 26. These facts disclose that right from very beginning replying respondent was placed senior to applicant and he never objected to the seniority assigned to replying respondent. Without challenging any of the earlier final seniority lists, the applicant has filed present original application as if, the seniority was finalized for the first time in 1999. By the present original application the applicant wants to unsettle settled position. Hence, the original application deserves to be dismissed on the 3 ground of suppression of material facts, unsettling of settled position, the original application being barred by limitation as also hit by delay and laches.” 3. In response petitioner has simply stated that he did not approach the Court earlier as he was waiting for the State to issue the final seniority list in compliance of the order dated 30.4.1991 passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in case T.A. No. 295 of 1986, titled as K. C. Nag and others versus State of H.P. and others. 4. Now there is no dispute that between the year 1985 and 1990, when at least five seniority lists were issued petitioner did not make any grievance about the placement of the private respondent. In fact he accepted the same. In the said seniority lists private respondent was always placed higher than the petitioner. There is also no dispute that the directions in K. C. Nag’s case (supra) were issued on 30.4.1991 and even thereafter petitioner never agitated the question of his seniority any time. There is also no dispute that the petitioner was not a party to any of the proceedings pending before the Tribunal. He did not question the placement of the private respondent till the filing of the instant petition in the year 1999. 5. The Apex Court in Malcom Lawrence Cecil D’Souza versus Union of India and others, AIR 1975 SC 1269 has held as under:- “8. The matter can also be looked at from another angle. The seniority of the petitioner qua 4 respondents 4 to 26 was determined as long ago as 1956 in accordance with 1952 Rules. The said seniority was reiterated in the seniority list issued in 1958. The present writ petition was filed in 1971. The petitioner, in our opinion, cannot be allowed to challenge the seniority list after lapse of so many years. The fact that a seniority list was issued in 1971 in pursuance of the decision of this Court in Karnik’s case AIR 1970 SC 2092 (supra) would not clothe the petitioner with a fresh right to challenge the fixation of his seniority list qua respondents 4 to 26 as the seniority list of 1971 merely reflected the seniority of the petitioner qua those respondents as already determined in 1956. Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst public servants because of stale claims made after lapse of 14 or 15 years. It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved with an administrative decision affecting one’s seniority should act with due diligence and promptitude and not sleep over the matter. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the petitioner before us for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court. It is no doubt true that he made a representation against the seniority list issued in 1956 and 1958 but that representation was rejected in 1961. No cogent ground has been shown as to why the petitioner became quiescent and took no diligent steps to obtain redress.” 5 6. Thus applying the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court to the instant facts it cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. The present petition devoid of any merit is thus dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 02, 2010 (PK)