Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Respondents No.5 to 8, 11 to 15, 17 and 18 are not present, despite service. Hence, they are proceeded ex-parte. 2. Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) To set-aside and quash the Final seniority list Annexure P-1 as it stood on 1-1-2010 and Annexure P-4 Provisional seniority list as it stood on 1-1-2011 issued by the respondent No.1 and 2/Board and further to assign the petitioners their correct place in the seniority list of electrician in the respondents Board above the respondent No.3 to 18. (ii) To direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to promote the petitioners to the post of Junior Engineer with all consequential benefits/reliefs from the same date i-e 5-8-2010, when the respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in the respondents Board.” 3. Annexure P-1 is the Seniority list of Electrician (M&T) Cadre as on 1.1.2010. This list was circulated on 1.1.2010. As per this Seniority list, petitioners are placed at Sr. Nos. 45 to 48. 4. Petitioners have obtained their Diploma in the trade of Electrician from ITI, an Institution managed by the Government, in the year 1989-90. They were appointed as Oil Cleaner (Helper) with the respondents/Board. 5. Facts are not much in dispute. In terms of order dated 27.12.1998 (Annexure RA-III), petitioners were promoted as Electrician (M & T). Since the issue is primarily based on interpretation of this order of promotion, the same is reproduced as under:- “H.P. State Electricity Board. “OFFICE ORDER” On the recommendation of Departmental promotion committee for Class-III (Field Tech. Staff), the following ITI qualified Helpers (M & T) are hereby promoted as Electrician ( M & T) , purely on adhoc basis, in the pay scale of 13502400 from the date of their taking over as such. Sr.No. Name of Official D.O.B. 1. S/Sh. Desh Raj (Helper) 3.2.63 2. Sh. Karam Chand (-do-) 22.3.66 3. “Ramesh Chand (-do-) 3.1.60 4. “Lekh Ram (-do-) 7.4.66 Above adhoc promotions are ordered in pursuance to the decision conveyed vide Secretary, HPSEB, Shimla-4 order No. HPSEB (Sectt)/Demands/95-103947-51 dt. 9.10.95. The above officials would be regularized when posts of promotion quota become available in the grade they are promoted. The above adhoc promotions will not confer upon the above officials any right to claim continuance on the posts and seniority in the grade of Electricians. 9.10.95. The above officials would be regularized when posts of promotion quota become available in the grade they are promoted. The above adhoc promotions will not confer upon the above officials any right to claim continuance on the posts and seniority in the grade of Electricians. Consequent upon their adhoc promotion as Electricians, the following postings are hereby ordered with immediate effect in the public interest. Sr.No. Name of Official Place of present Place of further posting posting 1. Sh. Desh Raj M&T Divn., Solan M&T S/Divn. Solan 2. “ Karam Chand --do- S/Nagar -do- Bilaspur 3. “ Ramesh Chand --do---do--- -do- 4. “ Lekh Ram --do------- M&T S/Divn. HPSEB, Sundernagar. The official in whose cases change of station is involved, shall be entitled to usual joining time and TTA as admissible under the rules. Promotion of the officials who do not join their place of posting by 8.1.1996 shall be considered as withdrawn. Superintending Engineer, M&T Circle, HPSEB, Bilaspur, Dated:-27.12.93.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Challenge to the seniority list is primarily on two grounds:- (i) That period of adhoc service rendered by the petitioners as Electrician (M & T), in terms of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association and others versus State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1990 SC 1607 and U.P. Secretariat U.D.A. Association through its Joint Secretary, G.C. Srivastava and others versus State of U.P. and others, (1999) 1 SCC 278 , as also instructions dated 31st August, 2002 issued by the Government, is required to be considered for the purposes of considering the petitioners’ case for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer; (ii) That ineligible persons were appointed as Electrician and despite the fact that they joined later in point of time, were placed senior to the present petitioners. In the seniority list, such persons are shown to have been regularized, whereas petitioners are still shown to be appointed on adhoc basis. 7. It is important to notice that in the present petition, petitioners have not challenged appointment/regularization of private-respondents No.3, 4 and 5. These persons were appointed sometime in the year 1986 onwards. They were regularized in the year 1996. The present petition was filed on 27.2.2011. At this point in time, it is not open for the petitioners to assail such appointments. 8. These persons were appointed sometime in the year 1986 onwards. They were regularized in the year 1996. The present petition was filed on 27.2.2011. At this point in time, it is not open for the petitioners to assail such appointments. 8. Petitioners were promoted as Electrician (M & T) in terms of Annexure RA-III issued in the year 1998. Their terms of promotions are unambiguously clear. Petitioners never assailed their terms of promotion. Even in the present writ petition, there is no challenge to this effect. The respondents in their reply have clearly explained that for the post of Electrician, there is only 60% quota for promotion and petitioners’ promotion, in terms of Annexure RA-III, was in fact in excess of the same. 9. In my view, respondent No.1 could not have promoted the petitioners in excess of the prescribed quota, in violation of the statutory rules. Perhaps, it is for this reason that the present petitioners kept on sleeping over the matter and did not assail the terms of their promotion. 10. The instructions dated 31st August, 2002, specifically deal with counting of adhoc service for the purpose of promotion and confirmation and reliance on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court is misconceived. In fact, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association (supra),has specifically held that where initial appointment is only on adhoc basis and not according to the rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, officiation on such post cannot be taken into account for considering seniority. Also, decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.2984 of 2010, titled as Shri Karam Singh Verma versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, dated 29.12.2011, is clearly inapplicable in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association (supra). 11. I further find that there is also no specific challenge to the order of appointment of the present private respondents. 12. My specific attention is invited by Shri Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for private respondents that in fact first final seniority list of the post of Electrician was prepared in the year 2004. Even the same has not been assailed by the petitioners in the present petition. No doubt petitioners did represent against the same but then they let the matter rest there. Even the same has not been assailed by the petitioners in the present petition. No doubt petitioners did represent against the same but then they let the matter rest there. Repeated representations would not give rise to a fresh cause of action. In fact factum of preparation of final seniority list in the year 2004 and petitioners having made a grievance with regard to the same, was not even disclosed in the present petition. 13. Further the Apex Court in Malcom Lawrence Cecil D’Souza v. Union of India and others, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1269, has held as under:- “8. The matter can also be looked at from another angle. The seniority of the petitioner qua respondents No.4 to 26 was determined as long ago as 1956 in accordance with 1952 Rules. The said seniority list was reiterated in the seniority list issued in 1958. The present writ petition was filed in 1971. The petitioner, in our opinion, cannot be allowed to challenge the seniority list after lapse of so many years. The fact that a seniority list was issued in 1971 in pursuance of the decision of this Court in Karnik’s case AIR 1970 SC 2092 (supra) would not clothe the petitioner with a fresh right to challenge the fixation of his seniority qua respondents No.4 to 26 as the seniority list of 1971 merely reflected the seniority of the petitioner qua those respondents as already determined in 1956. Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst public servants because of stale claims made after lapse of 14 or 15 years. It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved with an administrative decision affecting one’s seniority should act with due diligence and promptitude and not sleep over the matter. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the petitioner before us for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court. It is no doubt true that he made a representation against the seniority list issued in 1956 and 1958 but that representation was rejected in 1961. No cogent ground has been shown as to why the petitioner became quiescent and took no diligent steps to obtain redress.” 14. Consequently, in my considered view, no relief in the present petition, which has been filed in the present form, at such a belated stage can be granted to the petitioners. No cogent ground has been shown as to why the petitioner became quiescent and took no diligent steps to obtain redress.” 14. Consequently, in my considered view, no relief in the present petition, which has been filed in the present form, at such a belated stage can be granted to the petitioners. Since names of petitioners are lower in the seniority list, their case for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer cannot be considered in accordance with the Rules. Consequently, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.