IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 14477 of 2008 Decided on: April 19, 2011 Kamlesh Samyal Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and anr. Respondents _______________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Chauhan vice Counsel. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma Dy.A.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers:- “(i) That the inaction of the respondent No. 2 in not providing the proper place to the applicant in the seniority list as per her entitlement and date of joining may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, contrary, unconstitutional, unjustified, unreasonable and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and the respondent No. 2 may further be directed to provide the proper place to the applicant in the seniority list of T.G.T.s. taking into consideration the date of joining of the applicant i.e. 27-1- 1978. (ii) That the respondent No.2 may further be directed to consider and promote the applicant to the post of Headmistress w.e.f 25-5-2006, the date the immediate juniors to the applicant have been ordered to be promoted to the post of Head-Masters/Headmistresses vide order dated 25-5-2006 (Annexure A-3) along with all consequential benefits.” 2. In the reply at para 3, it is stated as follows:- “That the applicant has no cause of action to maintain the O.A. before this Hon’ble Tribunal as no justice has been 2 caused to the applicant as the seniority list of TGTs has been prepared on the basis of merit as per norms fixed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. contained in Personnel matter Hand Book Vol-I second addition of Rule (13.4.3) IV direct recruitment. The name of the applicant was sponsored through Ex-servicemen Cell. The applicant was appointed as TGT and she joined on 27.1.1978. The name of the applicant is liable to be placed at the bottom of merit of those TGTs whose interviews had been held in the year 1977. Hence the claim for change of seniority number of the applicant is not justified as she was appointed as ward of Ex-serviceman. It is further submitted that tentative seniority list was issued vide this Directorate letter No. EDN-H-(2)B(9)7-17/74 Vol-IV dated 22.3.1987 and same was finalized by respondent department on 24.3.1990. During the gap of three years time, no representation was made by the applicant. Hence the change of seniority number at this belated stage is not possible as per rules of seniority. Therefore, the present O.A. being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.” 3. There is no rejoinder. In case, the petitioner has still any dispute with regard to the factual position, as stated in the reply filed by the Director of Education, he may approach the Principal Secretary to the Government of H.P. and in which case, the matter will be duly considered by the said authority with notice to the petitioner. 4. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice April 19, 2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol), (Rana/pankaj) Judge.