IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 16706/2008 Decided on:15.9.2010 _____________________________________________ Beli Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 to 25. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) . Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was engaged as a Mining Guard on daily wage basis on 12.3.1974. He worked in the same capacity till 16.6.1974. His services were terminated. However, he was re-engaged on 27.6.1974. Thereafter he again remained willfully absent from 12.9.1975 to 3.12.1975. He was re-engaged on 4.12.1975. His name was sponsored 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No by the Employment Exchange, Theog for the post of Mining Guard. He was appointed contingent paid Mining Guard pursuant to which he joined his duties on 21.6.1976. He was interviewed on 25.5.1976 and thereafter regular post was offered to him on 19.7.1976 as Mining Guard. He joined his duties on 26.7.1976. Private respondents were also regularized as Mining Guard on 19.7.1976. Tentative seniority list of Mining Guards of Geological Wing, as it stood on 31.10.1989, was issued by the respondent-Department on 30.1.1990, vide Annexure A-5. Petitioner ranked below the private respondents. He made representation against the seniority list on 20.6.1992. He served a legal notice on the respondent-State on 8.4.1993. Another seniority list, as it stood on 31.12.1992, was issued vide Annexure A-9. Private respondents again ranked senior to the petitioner. Petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance by filing OA No.1973/1993. The same was disposed of by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by treating the same as representation to the Secretary (Industries). He rejected the same on 16.8.1994 vide Annexure A-10. Thereafter another tentative seniority list of Mining Guard of Geological Wing, as it stood on 31.12.1992, was issued on 1.5.1995. Petitioner made representation against the same to the State Geologist on 31.5.1995. 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that since his client has been appointed on the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection committee, he should rank above the private respondents in all the seniority lists issued with effect from 31.10.1989 onwards. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that private respondents have started working as Mining Guards before the petitioner. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the details of engagement of the private respondents in para 6 (4) of the reply. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has worked uninterruptedly with effect from 12.3.1974 till 3.12.1975. He was re-engaged on 4.12.1975. Thereafter his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Theog. He faced interview on 25.5.1976 pursuant to which he was offered appointment. The fact of the matter is that the private respondents, who had been appointed on 4.1.1971, as contingent Mining Guards, were also regularized with effect from 19.7.1976 itself. These persons ranked senior to the petitioner. The earlier original application filed by the petitioner has been treated representation to the Secretary (Industries). He dismissed the same, as noticed above, on 16.8.1994. It has come in the reply that the names of the private respondents were also sponsored by the respective Employment Exchanges. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have placed on record any rules on the basis of which the seniority of the Mining Guard is to be determined. The seniority of Mining Guards has been reckoned by the respondent-State from the date of their initial engagements. It is settled law by now that in the absence of rules, the length of service is to be treated as valid criteria for determining the seniority. It is in these circumstances that the private respondents have been assigned seniority above the petitioner since they were appointed as contingent Mining Guards before the petitioner. 6. 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 15.9.2010 *awasthi*