IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.7827/2008 Decided on:11.5.2009 Prakam Singh and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No. For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5 Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioners have assailed the provisional seniority list of Sub Inspectors (Wireless) including 3rd Battalion and IRB as it stood on 1.1.2001 notified on 31.1.2001. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that respondents No.4 and 5, who have been promoted by invoking provisions of H.P.R. 13.21 could not rank senior in the provisional seniority list at Sr. Nos. 5 and 6. They made representation against the seniority list on 13.2.2001. The same stood rejected on 18.4.2001. A bare perusal 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 of the seniority list reveals that respondent No.4 was appointed to the post of Sub Inspector (Wireless) on 2.6.1990. Respondent No.5 was appointed to the post of Sub Inspector (Wireless) on 12.11.1992. They had started discharging the duties of the post of Sub Inspector (Wireless) with effect from 2.6.1990 and 12.11.1992, respectively. The petitioners have assailed their placement in the seniority list only by way of present petition. The Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioners ought to have challenged the promotions of respondents No.4 and 5 effected on 2.6.1990 and 12.11.1992, respectively. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has submitted that the promotion orders of respondents No.4 and 5 could not be assailed since his clients came to know about their out of turn promotion only when the seniority list was circulated on 31.1.2001. This version cannot be believed. Since the promotion of respondents No.4 and 5 has not been assailed by the petitioners, the present petition is not maintainable. This Court will not unsettle the things which stood settled on 2.6.1990 and 12.11.1992 after the promotion of respondents No.4 and 5. The petitioners have not remained vigilant to protect their rights. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 11.5. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*