CWP(T) No. 12882/2008 23.02.2011 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents It is not in dispute that petitioner was working as a Research Assistant in the Himachal Academy of Arts Languages & Culture Department. It is also not in dispute that his services were deployed as Lecturer (school cadre) in the department of Education in terms of office order dated 3.10.2001 (Annexure A-3). Office order evidently makes it clear that petitioner amongst others was declared to be surplus in the original department. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to various representations made by the petitioner (Annexures A-6 to A-8) requesting for according him seniority from the date of his initial appointment as a Research Assistant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in K. Madhvan vs. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 566, K. Anjaiah & Ors. vs. K. Chandriah & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 218 and Union of India vs. Kuldip Singh Permer (2003) 9 SCC 472. 3. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Learned Dy. Advocate General has vehemently opposed the contentions. According to him, judgments relied upon are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 4. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a direction is issued to the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representations already made to the respondents. While taking decision thereupon, respondents shall take into account the instructions issued on 27.3.2001 (Annexure A-10). 5. Decision shall be taken by the authorities within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. February 23, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.