IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 5503/2008 Decided on:30.7.2010 _____________________________________________ Avtar Singh and another. …Petitioners. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation. …Respondent. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Nemo. For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). 1. Case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that period of ad hoc services followed by regularization should be counted for the purpose of seniority. The representations made by them was rejected by the competent authority vide Annexure “A”. The promotion of the petitioners was purely on temporary officiating basis with a rider that it will not confer any right towards seniority etc. Moreover, the petitioners have not arrayed those persons as party-respondents who will be affected in case the relief is 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 granted to the petitioners, as such, the petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. 2. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 30.7.2010 *awasthi*