IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.11946 of 2008. Judgment reserved on:13.4.2011. Date of decision: 18.4.2011. Keshav Ram and others …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General for respondents. Deepak Gupta, J . 1. By means of this petition, the petitioners claim that the services rendered by them on ad hoc basis may be taken into consideration for purposes of fixing their seniority and the seniority list be corrected accordingly and secondly they be promoted from the same date from which persons junior to them were promoted. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have not been promoted as Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Head Teachers, number of teachers who were junior to them have been promoted as such. 3. The stand of the State is that the persons who were promoted were initially recruited as Volunteer Teachers and as per the scheme framed by the Government, their services were regularized. After their regularization they were absorbed against the regular posts in the year 1994 and hence they became senior to the petitioners. 4. The petitioners have not challenged the appointment of the aforesaid persons on regular basis. The persons who the petitioners claim are junior to them have not been impleaded as party respondents in the case. The main claim of the petitioners is that the seniority list be corrected and they be shown senior and thereafter they be promoted as Head Teachers. 5. The first relief claimed is that the petitioners are senior to a large number of persons some of whom have been named in para 3 of 3 the petition. However, none of these persons have been impleaded as party respondents in the case. The aforesaid persons were appointed on regular basis in the year 1994 and shown senior to the petitioners and thereafter have been promotted as Head Teachers from time to time. The present petition has been filed in the year 2005 and there is no explanation what the petitioners were doing for so many years. 6. In my view, the persons over whom the petitioners claim seniority were necessary parties to the petition and in their absence no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Furthermore, there is no explanation for the long delay in filing the petition. 7. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. April 18, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge