IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7820 of 2008. Decided on: 2.6.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Parma Nand and another. … Petitioners. Versus The State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioners were appointed as Ayurvedic Compounders by the Director, Health Services. They joined their duties on 24.5.1966 and 27.11.1967. In the month of May, 1972, the Chief Medical Officer, Kalpa, District Kinnaur informed the petitioners that the departmental examination for Ayurvedic Compounders was to be held in the month of June, 1972. They qualified the departmental examination on 20.12.1972. The respondents issued final seniority list of Ayurvedic Compounders as it stood on 31.12.1983 vide memorandum dated 14.3.1984. A tentative seniority list was issued on 31.12.1984. It was circulated on 24.10.1985. The petitioners were assigned seniority at serial number 142 and 288. The State Government had taken a decision 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 to grant higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 in the ratio of 50:50 to Ayurvedic Compounders. The higher pay scales were to be given with effect from 1.1.1986. The petitioners could not get it since they were ranked sufficiently low in the impugned seniority list. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan has strenuously argued that the seniority was to be determined from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of passing of departmental examination. He then contended that the respondents were lax in holding the departmental examination which led to delay in the petitioners’ passing the departmental examination on 20.12.1972. He further contended that certain persons junior to them have been ranked senior on the basis of passing the departmental examination and these persons have been granted senior pay scale as well. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the seniority lists were issued from time to time, final as well as tentative. The seniority lists were finalized after taking into consideration the representations of all concerned. The petitioners have not made any representations against the seniority list. He then contended that in case some juniors were sent for departmental training earlier to them, they were required to file an appeal before the appellate authority. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. A bare perusal of the reply and the annexures suggests that the tentative and final seniority lists were issued from time to time. The petitioners have not filed any representations against the same. The last tentative seniority list was issued in the 3 year 1985. They were ranked at serial number 142 and 288 respectively. The petitioners were required to file petition within a reasonable time of six months to one year against the seniority list. It is settled law by now that settled things should not be unsettled. The respondents have decided to grant seniority from the date of passing of the departmental examination. This criteria cannot be faulted with. Initially the petitioners and similarly situated persons were un-trained compounders. They have been imparted training by the department. They became qualified only after acquiring the requisite training. In case the persons junior to the petitioners were sent on training, they could file representation or could approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. They slept over their rights for number of years. There is another impediment in the way of petitioners. They have not arrayed the persons, who according to them were junior, however were ranked senior in the seniority list. The persons ranking higher in the seniority list were necessary parties. Their rights cannot be affected without hearing them. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and non-joinder of necessary parties. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 2, 2009. (cr)