CWP(T) No. 6945/2008 28.09.2010 Present: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, vice Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1 Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 10 It cannot be disputed that petitioners herein were respondents in the petition filed by some of the employees before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was numbered as O.A./T.A. No. 289/96, titled as Kishori Lal & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors. and decided in terms of judgment dated 5.1.2000. 2. In Kishori Lal (supra), the following observations were made:- “In view of the above discussion the application is partly allowed in terms as follows:- i) The seniority list Annexure PA is quashed and set aside. It is ordered that the same will be prepared on the basis of the date of the appointment in the H.P. Secretariat. ii) The promotion to the post of Assistant and onwards shall be made in accordance with on the basis of revised seniority. iii) Promotion of the reserved candidate as Assistant could be made in accordance with the instructions contained in Annexure RH, which were based on the judgment of Apex Court in M.M. Thomas, subject to the condition that their over all share falls short in the cadre on the day the DPC met on 26.2.1979. iv) The promotion made vide Annexure PF dated 7.3.1979 are also quashed in view of our order at Sr. Nos. i, ii and iii supra. v) The seniority of the respondent No.20 shall be with reference to his joining in H.P. Secretariat on 9.12.1964 as Clerk.” 3. There is no dispute that pursuant to the directions issued in Kishori Lal (supra), seniority list in question was to be re-drawn. The directions were complied with and it is this seniority list which has been assailed by the petitioners in the instant petition. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Kishori Lal (supra), was a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem. 5. The contention, in my considered view, needs to be rejected at the threshold. The challenge to the same, in my considered view, is misconceived. 6 From the directions as reproduced hereinabove, it is quite apparent that the entire impugned seniority list was quashed. The directions were not confined to any particular individual. Pursuant to the directions entire seniority list amongst the eligible candidates was to be redrawn. 7. It is not in dispute that petitioners themselves had assailed the judgment by way of CWP No. 733/2007 which was dismissed on 13.8.2008. Thus the matter in issue attained finality and consequently present petition being not maintainable and devoid of merit is dismissed. . ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. September 28, 2010 (rana)