IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 10245 of 2008. Decided on: 29.4.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Himachal Pradesh Promotee School Lecturers Assn. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl.A.G. For respondent No.3 : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). Supplementary affidavits in terms of order dated 22.12.2010 stand filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2. 2. The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7:- “ (i). Quash the impugned action of the respondents whereby they have sent the panel for Lecturers (School Cadre) from the seniority list dated 20.06.2003 which has already been rejected being issued arbitrarily, malafide and illegally by the respondents. (ii) Direct the respondents to redraw the seniority list as per the rules and regulations in the ratio of 1:1 as per the directions from respondent No.1 and thereafter only send the panel of all eligible Lecturers (School Cadre) for promotion to the post of Principal whether they have passed Departmental Examination or not.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 3. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, the following stand has been taken vide paras 6.5, 6.5 and 6.7:- “6.5. That in reply to the contents of this para it is respectfully submitted that the replying respondent has never disobeyed the order of any authority or the direction passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal. In the instant case the seniority of direct recruitment and the promotees has been maintained as per ratio laid down by the instruction of the Govt. issued from time to time. Therefore, the seniority list maintained by the respondent State is purely in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 6.6. That in reply to the averments made in this para it is respectfully submitted that the respondent State has gone through the representation of the applicant association and the matter in question has been referred to the govt. for seeking necessary clarification by respondent No.2 and final decision so taken by respondent No.1 will be implemented in its letter and spirit. 6.7. That in reply to this para it is submitted that respondent No.1 has directed respondent No.2 that seniority of school lecturers may be redrawn in accordance with Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Therefore, at this belated stage the seniority of the school lecturers cannot be disturbed and respondent No.2 has referred the matter to respondent No.1 for seeking necessary clarification with regard to the determination of the seniority of the school lecturers and the decision is awaited from respondent No.1. As soon as the decision in the matter is received from respondent No.1 with regard to the determination of seniority of the school lecturers, action in the matter will be taken as per directions from respondent No.1.” 3 4. There is no reply on behalf of respondent No.3. 5. It is further stated as under in the supplementary affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary (Education) in compliance of order dated 22.12.2010:- “2. That there are two different Associations of Lecturers (School Cadre), one of Promotees Lecturers amongst TGT cadre and another of direct recruitee Lecturers. Both the associations have different demands, which cannot be tagged simultaneously. Meeting of their demand charter has been discussed from time to time and proceedings thereof has been issued. The demand charter of one association cannot be discussed with other association as it create chaos, in the meeting if held at the same time. The demand charter from the petitioner Association was received, therefore, a meeting was fixed with them only. 3. That the Director Higher Education is cadre controlling authority of the Lecturer school cadre and the seniority list was prepared by the Director Higher Education. He sought clarification regarding seniority list from the State. The matter was examined at Government level in consultation with the Department of Personnel and duly conveyed to the Director Higher Education vide this Department letter No. EDN-A-Kha (4) 9/97-II dated 25.6.2004.” 6. Paras 2 & 3 of the affidavit filed by the Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh in terms of the aforesaid order dated 22.12.2010 are as under:- “2. That it is submitted that the seniority of these Lecturers School Cadre is maintained in the ratio of 1:1 and therefore the seniority maintained by the respondent Department has been prepared as per the 4 formula i.e. 1st for direct recruitment and 2nd for promotee. The names of the Lectuers who have retired/promoted/died have been deleted from the seniority list maintained by the department. The old seniority maintained by the Department finds all the names of these lecturers who have retired/promoted/died. But in the fresh seniority list the names of such lecturers have been deleted. However, the seniority of the Lecturers has been prepared as per the parameter laid down by the Government that is the ratio of 1:1. However, it is submitted that the seniority list is prepared and finalized on year to year basis because of promotions/appointments. So it can differ. 3. That it is submitted that the matter in question was also taken up with the Government by the Directorate and the Government has clarified that the seniority may be maintained after applying the formula of 1:1. Thereafter, the matter was re- examined and it revealed that the seniority of School Lecturers have been prepared as per instructions of the Government in the ratio of 1:1.” 7. It is manifest that the controversy involved in the present petition is essentially between the rival Associations, that is, the petitioner-Association and respondent No.3-Association. It appears that while taking the decision giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition, respondent No.3-Association was not taken into confidence. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner-Association making a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, to respondent No.1 within one month from today, the same shall be considered and 5 finally disposed of by the said respondent within next two months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the Associations (petitioner and respondent No.3), if so desired. 9. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. April 29, 2011. (cr)