CWP(T) No.12497/2008 13.10.2011 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Petitioner has assailed the seniority list (Annexures A-3 & A-6) whereby he is placed below private respondent No.3. His representation to rectify the mistake also stands rejected in terms of orders Annexure A-5, which also is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner was initially appointed on regular basis as Jr. Scale Stenographer on 6.5.1988 with Directorate of HIPA. Private respondent was appointed as a Jr. Scale Stenographer in her parent department on 20.8.1988. Both petitioner and private respondent were placed on deputation with the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short ‘the Board’) on different dates. Private respondent joined the Board on 9.12.1998 whereas petitioner joined on 12.3.1999. However, fact of the matter is that both were permanently absorbed by the Board on 1.5.2001. Undisputedly, in the parent department petitioner has rendered more service than the private respondent. Petitioner was successfully discharging his duties at HIPA w.e.f. 6.5.1988 on regular basis. 3. It is contended by the private respondent that petitioner’s initial appointment was not in accordance with the Rules. This is not true. Condition of eligibility was relaxed in the case of the petitioner and only after he was otherwise found eligible for regular appointment he was selected and appointed. Undisputedly since 6.5.1988, petitioner has been discharging his duties on regular basis. 4. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Surinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CWP No.5271 of 2008, decided on 31.8.2010 and Andeep Rana & Ors. vs. H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, CWP No.8449 of 2010, decided on 15.9.2011, has already held that service(s) rendered by the employees in other parent departments on regular basis prior to their absorption has to be considered for the purposes of preparation of fresh seniority list and promotion. 5. In this view of the matter, petition needs to be allowed. As such, seniority list (Annexures A-3 & A-6) qua the petitioner and private respondent is quashed. Annexure A-5 is also quashed. There shall be a direction to the respondent-state to prepare a fresh seniority list after giving notice to all concerned. All consequences shall follow. Needful shall be positively done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Petition stands disposed off. October 13, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.