IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. : 2201of 2008 Decided on : 22.10.2010 R.K. Sood … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. … 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: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Ms. Anjula Kharuira, Advocate ________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral). The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer: - “7. (i) That the respondent board may be directed to assign correct placement of the seniority list of the Executive Engineers to the applicant i.e. below Shri S.K. Sud, at Sr. No. 53 of Annexure-A-2. (ii) That the respondent may be directed to give the correct deemed date of the promotion to the applicant as Executive Engineer. (ii) That the Respondent-Board may be directed to give all consequential benefits to the applicant after giving correct placement in the seniority list.” 2. In the reply at page 86 para-3 it is stated thus:- “The tentative seniority list of Executive Engineers (Electrical) has been prepared and circulated vide this office letter No. HPSEB(SECTT)/ 101-75/91-3767- 3976 dated 12.12.91 (Annexure-A-2) in pursuance to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Tribunal on 28.10.91 in T.A. No. 52/87 titled Shri V.S. Malhotra and others v/s H.P. State Electricity Board and others. The applicant has been assigned proper place in the said seniority list taking into consideration R&P Regulations 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and other relevant factors. In the revised seniority list of Executive Engineers (E) which is under preparation, the deemed date of promotion as Executive Engineer (E) is being assigned to the applicant earlier than the actual date of his promotion as Executive Engineer (E). Further the contention of the applicant that the respondents No. 2 &3 were not eligible for promotion as Executive Engineer is not correct. In fact they completed the eligibility criteria according to R&P regulation and were therefore eligible for promotion as Executive Engineer. It is submitted that all the records of the Board’s Sectt. Prior to 3/82 was burnt in the devastating fire which broke out in the Kennedy Cottage building. IN the absence of the same the respondent Board has revised the seniority list of Executive Engineers(E) taking into consideration the earlier seniority lists and other available records and re-assigned seniority in the same orders except in the cases of diploma holders respondents made in the OA No. 52/77 whose promotion orders were set aside by the Hon’ble Tribunal and also other effected diploma holder Executive Engineers (Electrical). Therefore the respondents No. 2 to 5 including candidates belonging to reserved category were also assigned same seniority position according to their seniority position earlier assigned amongst degree holders. The applicant is also degree holder. The name of respondent No.3 has been mentioned wrongly as Sh. S.R. Mandal instead of Sh. S.N. Mandal. In view of above position the applicant is not aggrieved by the issuance of the above tentative seniority list of Executive Engineers (Electrical).” 3. According to the petitioner, he has not been granted the proper place in the seniority list and though he had filed several representations and the same were never considered on merit. It is seen from Annexure- A-22, that the representations have been rejected by one line cryptic orders saying only that the same have been considered and rejected. Thus, the order does not satisfy the requirement of law and does not fulfill the principle of natural justice. 4. Therefore, we set aside Annexure-A-22 and direct the first respondent to consider the representations made by the petitioner with a notice to the petitioner and effective parties. The petitioner may make available all the records with him before the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent shall pass a speaking order. The needful shall be done adverting to the submissions made by the petitioner. We may make 3 it clear that the needful be done within four months from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment alongwith supplementary representation after serving copies to the effective parties. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (V.K.Sharma) Judge. 22nd October, 2010 cr / Pritam