IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1505 of 2009. Date of Decision: 18.10. 2010. Sh.Yashpal Singh Saini and others …Petitioners. Versus. State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Adarsh Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G. for respondents No.1 to 2. Mr.Shrawan Dogra & Mr.Dalip Sharma, Counsel for respondents 4,6,11,13 to 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 to 28. Mr.Sanjiv Bhushan, counsel for respondents No.5, 22 & 25. M/s.Himender Chandel & Trilok Jamwal, counsel for proposed respondents. Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the grant of following amongst other reliefs: “i) Writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Principal (School Cadre) from the post of Lecturers (School Cadre). ii) Writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the promotion process initiated by the respondent No.2 by way of Annexure P-7 dated 8.4.2009 whereby persons junior to the 2 petitioners are being considered for promotion whereas, the petitioners’ candidature has been over-looked.” The undisputed facts are that the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers (School Cadre) on tenure/ad hoc basis. Admittedly, their appointment was not done as per the procedure laid down in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. On 23rd August, 1994 the respondent-State took a policy decision that the services of all those school lecturers who had worked on tenure/ad hoc basis for a period of more than 3 years would be regularized. Two other communications in this regard were issued. In these three communications nothing was stated as to how the seniority of tenure/ad hoc lecturers who were to be regularized would be determined. Finally an order was passed on 3rd November, 1995 whereby the services of the petitioners along with some other persons who had completed more than 3 years of continuous service on ad hoc/tenure basis were regularized w.e.f. 31.3.1994. This letter also contained a stipulation with regard to seniority and it was mentioned that the aforesaid Lecturers regularized vide order dated 3rd November, 1995 would en bloc be junior to those who were appointed on regular basis up to 31.3.1994. It is also not disputed that thereafter seniority lists were issued and final seniority lists were issued both in the years 1997 and 2003 in which the petitioners were shown junior to those persons who were regularly appointed up to 3.11.1995 i.e. the date when the orders of regularization were issued. It is averred in the present petition that the 3 petitioners have challenged the seniority list of 1997 in O.A. No.848 of 2001 (CWP-T No.3097 of 2008) before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which has now been transferred to this Court. The grievance of the petitioners now is that the posts of Principals are being filled up and persons who were appointed on regular basis after 31.3.1994 and prior to 3.11.1995 are being promoted as Principals over and above the petitioners. The main contention of the petitioners is that in terms of their order of regularization they were entitled to seniority w.e.f. 31.3.1994 and not from 3.11.1995. Admittedly in the present petition there is no challenge to the seniority list. It has only been averred that the seniority list has been challenged in O.A. No.848 of 2001 (CWP-T No.3097 of 2008). The zone of consideration for the purposes of promotion has to be drawn up on the basis of existing seniority list. Unless such seniority list is set-aside or quashed the same shall have to be followed. Therefore, without setting aside the seniority list the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as claimed in the present writ petition. This petition is therefore rejected on the short ground that till the seniority list is set-aside the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the present petition. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions of both the parties, that is, the petitioners or the private respondents herein since according to the 4 respondents the petitioners could not have been regularized and even if they could be regularized they could not have been regularized w.e.f. 31.3.1994. These questions have to be decided in appropriate proceedings and not in these proceedings. All the pending applications are also disposed of. The stay order stands vacated. No costs. October 18, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.