CWP(T) No. 3657/08 (OA (D)31/96) 27.04.2009 Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. Actual date notice had been issued to the petitioner as also his counsel for today. However, inspite of pass over, none has caused appearance. Hence, in the absence of the petitioner, the matter is being decided. The petitioner is aggrieved of the respondents’ action of not assigning him the correct position in the seniority list. The respondents in their reply have stated as under: “…(iii) It is submitted that there was a mutual transfer vide which the applicant was transferred to this department from H.P. Sectt. vice Shri Kashmir Singh. The appointment letter of the applicant was issued by this department vide No.Kgs/PF/77-3210 dated the 22nd July, 1977, and sent to the Under Secretary (S.A) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla for further necessary action but the same could not be delivered to the applicant due to the reason that the applicant had already been relieved of his duties therefrom. The said appointment order was, however, returned to this department by the Under Secretary (S.A.) vide his letter No. Per(SA-1)B(15)-18/76 dated the 10th August, 1977 (Annexure R-1). On receipt of it in this department, the same had been handed over to the applicant. The receipt of the original letter of the Under Secretary-(SA) referred to above (Annexure R-1) for record. It is further submitted that the seniority of the applicant has been correctly fixed and shown at right place in the seniority list. The applicant belongs to Kangra District and Shri Kashmir Singh, whose transfer was made to H.P. Secretariat in place of the applicant, was from Shimla District. Accordingly both the officials had consented for mutual transfers. The mutual transfers of these officials were made subject to the condition that they could forgo their seniority to their previous departments. It is therefore, wrong to say that the seniority of the applicant has not been fixed correctly. (iv) (Vi) The services of the applicant were not placed under the disposal of the Settlement Department, Kangra Division. (V) (Vii) It is submitted that incorrect date of birth as shown in the seniority list as it stood 30.11.94 was purely due to clerical error and the same could be corrected by the replying respondent.” The petitioner has not refuted to the same. No legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. In this view of the matter, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol) Judge. April 27, 2009. (rana)