IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. : 6358 of 2008 Decided on : 22.10.2010 Hukam Chand … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: None. For respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. ________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral). The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers: - “7. (i) To quash and set-aside the impugned seniority list at Annexure ‘PA’; (ii) To quash and set-aside the promotion of Shri Kishore Lal Negi, as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless), respondent No.4.” 2. In the reply at page 23 para-6 (d), it is stated thus:- “Admitted to the extent that the seniority list of the Inspectors was circulated on 15.7.1997 and the name of the applicant figured at Sr. No. 14. With regard to the rest of the averments made in this para it is submitted that the name of S/Sh. Sant Ram Garg, K.L. Negi, K.S. Arvind and Kanshi Ram figures below the applicant. However, they belong to reserve category of SC/ST and have been promoted to the rank of S.I. prior to the applicant in accordance with the points falling under 40 point roster. They have been promoted as S.I. w.e.f. 1.1.76, 14.10.76, 1.5.82 and 14.5.86 respectively whereas the applicant was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 promoted as such w.e.f. 13.5.88 as he belongs to general category. Thus in the rank of S.I. they become senior to the applicant. Keeping in view the promotion to the rank of Inspector prior to the applicant and thus their names have rightly been shown above the name of the applicant in the seniority list of Inspectors. With regard to position of Sh. Dharam Chand it is submitted that he was senior to the applicant in the rank of ASI as his name figured at Sr. No. 19 of the seniority list of ASIs. As on 31.5.82 and thus the applicant has no cause of action against seniority of Sh. Dharam Chand. Similarly Sh. K.L. Mehta was in technical cadre and promoted as Inspector prior to applicant i.e. w.e.f. 21.1.93 whereas the applicant was promoted as Inspector w.e.f. 18.7.95 and joined on the said post on 7.8.95. Thus in the combined seniority lit of Inspectors for operators and technicians he is junior to Sh. K.L. Mehta. However, the case of the seniority of Sh. Budhi Ram vis-à-vis the applicant is being examined. Moreover, the seniority of these personnel is not in controversy as the applicant has claimed promotion against the post of Dy. S.P. and these personnel have since been retired in the rank of Inspectors. Even if it is presumed that the applicant was wrongly placed in the seniority list of Inspectors even than he is not eligible for further promotion as Dy. S.P. till he passed the Grade-I test. 3. In view of the stand taken in the reply, in case the petitioner has still any surviving grievance left, it will be open to the petitioner to approach first respondent within a period of one month, in which case the first respondent shall take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of another four months on production of certified copy of this judgment. 4. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. “Copy dasti” (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K.Sharma) Judge. 22nd October, 2010 cr / Pritam