Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 688 (HP)

Jasmer Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-10-07

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to decide the objections submitted by the petitioner to tentative seniority list circulated by the Department as on 01.01.2018 and consequently allotting the appropriate seniority position to the petitioner in the final seniority list at par with the similarly situated persons and over and above his juniors, in the interest of justice. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist from the date when similarly placed persons and persons junior to him have been promoted i.e. with effect from 20.3.2020 alongwith all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice." 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition are as under: Petitioner claims to have been initially appointed as Class-IV employee on 08.06.1999 on daily wage basis. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.02.2009, his services were ordered to be regularized as such. The grievance of the petitioner primarily is with regard to the promotions of purportedly persons junior to him against the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist w.e.f. 20.03.2020, on the ground that these promotions have been made on the basis of a Tentative Seniority list circulated by the department as on 01.01.2018, against which objections were filed by the petitioner, which were not decided by the competent authority. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parities and have also gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith. 4. It is not in dispute that as after regularization of the services of the petitioner as a Class-IV employee, the first tentative seniority list of Class-IV employees therein as it stood on 31.12.2010, was circulated by the department vide letter dated 12.01.2011 and thereafter vide letter dated 05.01.2012 as it stood on 31.12.2011, which were finalized also. On a pointed query put by the Court to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had filed any objections to the said tentative seniority list, he has very fairly stated that no objections were filed by the petitioner to the said tentative seniority list. On a pointed query put by the Court to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had filed any objections to the said tentative seniority list, he has very fairly stated that no objections were filed by the petitioner to the said tentative seniority list. That being the case, in my considered view, this writ petition filed by the petitioner on the basis of tentative seniority list subsequently issued by the department, may be pertaining to Class-IV employees, is not maintainable. This I say so for the reason that each and every tentative seniority list which is issued by the department, does not confers a right upon the party to submit objections against the same. It is the first tentative seniority list, after the incumbent is appointed against a post or promoted against a post, which is relevant and has to be objected to by the concerned officer or official, in case he is dissatisfied with his seniority position, as mentioned therein. There can be a situation wherein an incumbent is not aggrieved by the initial tentative seniority, but he is aggrieved by the subsequent seniority list, which may be so issued by the department. In those cases, the incumbents shall have a right to submit objections even to the subsequent seniority list. Coming to the facts of present case, here it is not the case of the petitioner that though he was satisfied with his seniority position as was in the initial seniority list, but the same was altered to his disadvantage subsequently. Here is a case where the seniority of the petitioner, as was reflected in the first tentative seniority list, as it stood on 31.12.2010, stood maintained by the department even in the latest tentative seniority list, to which the objections were filed by the petitioner. That being the case, as I have already observed above, the petition cannot be said to be maintainable, because when the petitioner was not aggrieved by the seniority as was assigned to him in the first tentative seniority list issued as far back as in the year 2011, then subsequent tentative seniority lists cannot be taken to confer a fresh cause of action to the petitioner. 5. In view of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.