IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.15220 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 6, 2011 Shiv Lal ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner and one Vishwanath were working as Kanungos in Kullu District, in the year 1986. In the seniority list, copy Annexure A-1, pertaining to District Kullu, petitioner’s name figured at Sr. No.2 while that of aforesaid Vishwanath at Sr. No.8. List showed the position prevailing on 31.12.1984. 2. On 24.11.1986, an office order, copy Annexure A-2, was issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, whereby aforesaid Vishwanath was promoted as Naib Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É Tehsildar. Feeder category for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar is of Kanungos. Petitioner having felt aggrieved by the aforesaid office order, Annexure A2, made a representation on 14.1.1987, copy Annexure R1, claiming that he being senior to said Vishwanath ought to have been considered for appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildar. His representation was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner in the year 1995, vide order dated 5.12.1995, copy Annexure R-IV. The order is a speaking one. Reason given for the rejection of the representation is that though in the seniority list Vishwanath happened to be shown junior to the petitioner, in fact, he was senior to him, because of his having been appointed as Kanungo on 9.2.1981 and confirmed on 7.10.1982 while petitioner was appointed on 11.5.1983 and confirmed on 18.1.1984. After the rejection of his representation, petitioner took no further action to seek redressal of his grievance. 3. In the year 1993, an Original application was filed before the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, by some Kanungos of Shimla Division, alleging that they were senior to certain other Kanungos, but they had not been considered for promotion and their juniors had been considered and appointed on adhoc basis. That Original Application was allowed on 6.9.2002, vide order, copy annexure A-3. After the decision of the aforesaid Original Application, some more Original Applications were filed by É3É other Kanungos of Shimla Division, who too had been superseded by their juniors. Those petitions were filed in the year 2003 and decided on 1.10.2004. 4. As per decision given by the Tribunal in the Original Application of 1993, petitioners in that application, being senior to the private respondents, had the right to be considered for adhoc appointment alongwith private respondents, because the petitioners as also the private respondents, in that case, were ineligible for promotion, on account of their not fulfilling the prescribed criteria and, hence, the juniors, who too were ineligible, could not have been considered for adhoc appointment, ignoring the seniority of the petitioners. Decision in Original Application of 2003 followed the ratio of the decision in Original Application of 1993. 5. Petitioner’s case is that he is situated similarly to the persons, who had filed aforesaid Original Applications. His plea is without merit. That was a case, pertaining to Shimla Division, in which the Kanungos, who were appointed on adhoc basis, as also the Kanungos, who had challenged such appointment, were ineligible for promotion and, hence, promotions were made dehors the Rules. Promotion Order, as per order Annexure A-3 of the Tribunal, said that the promotees were liable to be reverted, when qualified candidates were to become available. That was not the position in the case of the petitioner and É4É Vishwanath, whose promotion has been assailed in this writ petition. Both of them were eligible for promotion, though it is a different matter that promotion of Vishwanath was made only on adhoc basis. 6. Petitioner’s representation against the promotion of Vishwanath was rejected long back in the year 1995, on the ground that he was actually junior to Vishwanath, he having been appointed in the year 1983 and Vishwanath in the year 1981. He did not assail or challenge the order of rejection of his representation nor did he make assertion that he was senior to Vishwanath, for long 11 years, after the rejection of his representation. He filed the present petition in the year 2007. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fresh cause of action accrued to the petitioner in May, 2006, when his second representation, copy Annexure A-9, which he made on 4.4.2006, was rejected. This second representation was made 11 years after the rejection of first one and it was based on the ratio of aforesaid judgment in Original Applications of 2003. As already noticed, facts of petitioner’s case are different from the facts of the case that was subject matter of 1993 and 2003 Original Applications and hence, his second representation had rightly been rejected. Otherwise also, second representation was made by the petitioner 11 years after the rejection of his first É5É representation and, thus, it was as stale as the present petition itself. 8. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. September 6, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.