IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 9502/2008 Reserved on: 6.1.2011 Decided on:21.2. 2011 _____________________________________________ Desh Raj. …Petitioner. Versus Secretary H.P. State Electricity Board and another. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the respondent-Board vide letter dated 28.5.1988. He joined his duties on 9.6.1988. The provisional seniority list of the Junior Engineers was notified on 11.7.1991, as it stood on 1.1.1990. Petitioner made representation vide Annexures A-5, A-7 and A-8. The representations made by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 petitioner were rejected and conveyed to him vide Annexure A-1 on 22.5.2003. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the persons, who had joined their duties after the petitioner, were made senior in the seniority list issued on 11.7.1991. Precise case of the respondent-Board is that seniority was prepared on the basis of merit drawn by the Selection Committee. 3. Mr. Pushpender Kumar has strenuously argued that his client has not been assigned the correct seniority on the basis of date of joining. According to him, the representations have been rejected by the respondents, without taking into consideration the pleas raised by his client. 4. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo has vehemently argued that the provisional seniority list was issued on 11.7.1991 and the petition was filed in the year 2003. According to him, settled things cannot be unsettled. He further argued that from 11.7.1991 to 2003, new seniority lists were also prepared and finalized and the petitioner has not assailed the same. He lastly contended that the present petition is not maintainable since the necessary parties have not been arrayed, as party. 3 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the respondent-Board on 28.5.1988. He joined his duties on 9.6.1988. It will be apt at this stage to refer to clause 18 of the appointment letter dated 28.5.1988 issued to the petitioner: “His seniority in the cadre shall be in the order of his merit and not from the date of joining.” 7. Thus, it is evident that the seniority was to be drawn on the basis of the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee. The date of joining was not relevant. In the seniority list, prepared by the Chief Engineer, petitioner ranked at Sr. No. 101 and the persons, who according to the petitioner have joined their duties after the petitioner, were ranked at Sr. No. 32, 33 and 97. Petitioner has assailed the seniority list; however, he has not added the persons, who are likely to be affected. The petition is also bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. Petitioner has assailed the provisional seniority list dated 11.7.1991, as it stood on 1.1.1990. Thereafter, the seniority list was finalized on 5.2.1994. The same was further revised on 1.1.1996. The provisional seniority list was thereafter issued on 30.6.2001. Petitioner ought to have assailed the seniority list within a 4 period of six months to one year. It is settled law that the settled things cannot be unsettled. The representations have been decided in accordance with law. 8. It is evident from the discussions made hereinabove that the seniority list was to be prepared on the basis of merit list and not from the date of joining. In case the contention of Mr. Pushpender Kumar is accepted in that eventuality, the persons, who were more meritorious, will rank junior to the persons, who have joined their duties prior in time. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.2. 2011 *awasthi*