IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 12312 of 2008. Decided on: 19th October, 2010. Manoj Kumar Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocates. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. None for respondents No. 3 & 8. Respondents No. 4 to 7, 9 and 10 are exparte. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure R- 1, dated 14.11.2005. On 24.09.2010, the respondent-State was directed to file a supplementary affidavit clarifying therein whether the petitioner was heard before the issuance of Annexure R-1, dated 14th November, 2005 or not. In sequel thereto, the respondent No. 2 has filed the supplementary affidavit on 30th September, 2010. Respondent No. 2 has categorically admitted that the petitioner was not heard before the issuance of order dated 14th November, 2005 (Annexure R-1). The seniority is a legal right. The petitioner has suffered civil and evil consequences. 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure R-1, dated 14th November, 2005 is quashed and set aside. However, the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. respondents are at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge 19th October, 2010. (bhupender)