IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.12501 of 2008 Date of decision : May 13, 2011 Sunita Kaushal …Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.F.C. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Stenographer in Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation, in November, 1987, on the basis of a written test conducted, after the posts were advertised. Respondent No.3 also appeared in that test and passed the same. However, his merit was assessed lower than that of the petitioner. 3. In the year 1988, a tentative Seniority List, copy Annexure A-1, was circulated, in which petitioner’s name figured at Sr. No.14, while that of respondent No.3 figured at Sr. No.24. Again, a tentative Seniority List was circulated, in which petitioner’s name figured at Sr. No.11 and that of respondent NO.3 at Sr. No.20. Final Seniority List was prepared and circulated in the year 1988. Copy of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the Final Seniority List is Annexure A-3. In this List, however, petitioner was placed at Sr. No.18, while respondent No.3 was placed at Sr. No.11. Thereafter, respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer, vide order dated 29th June, 1998, copy Annexure A-4. 4. Petitioner made a representation to her Higher Authorities, assailing the placement of respondent No.3 above her, in the Seniority List of Stenographers and promoting him to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer, on the basis of the aforesaid Seniority List. Petitioner was informed, vide letter dated 31st March, 1999, copy Annexure R-5, that respondent No.3 had been placed above her and some other persons, because of a decision taken by Head Office, Shimla. The communication, of course, did not state as to what the decision of the Head Office was, but in the reply it is stated that those who had been working on daily wages, prior to 1987, had, on their representation, been ordered to be placed above all those candidates, who were appointed, for the first time, in the year 1987, on the basis of the aforesaid written test. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since respondent No.3 had also been appointed on regular basis, on account of his having passed the examination, on the basis of which the petitioner was also selected and appointed, merit as attained in that written examination alone could have been the criteria for fixing seniority. …3… According to him, period for which respondent No.3 worked as daily waged Stenographer, without passing any examination, could not have been taken into consideration. 6. Without going into the merits of the case, I feel the present case, which was filed in the year 2005, before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, was hit by delay and latches, because the petitioner, despite rejection of her representation, in the year 1999, vide Annexure R-5, copy of which was endorsed to her, took no steps for redressal of her grievance and kept sleeping for almost six years. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. May 13, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J