ORDER : The petitioner seeks quashing of promotion of private respondents No. 3 to 5 as Assistant Engineers (Civil). Consequent prayer has been made for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (AE for short) from the date his juniors i.e. respondents No.3 to 5 were promoted as such with all incidental benefits. Another prayer has been made for re-drawing the seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) [hereinafter as JEs (Civil)] as it stood on 31.12.2014 and to place the petitioner, therein at the same seniority position which he was holding in the seniority list of JEs issued vide Annexure A-2. 2. The relevant factual matrix of the case is as under:- 2(i). On 08.09.2005, the official respondents issued final seniority list of Surveyors working in Irrigation and Public Health Department (IPH hereinafter) as it stood on 31.12.2004. Name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No.299 of this list, whereas, private respondents No.3, 4 and 5 figured at seniority position Nos. 301, 304 and 306, respectively. Private respondents No.3 to 5 were juniors to the petitioner as Surveyors in terms of final seniority list of the Surveyors circulated by the official respondents on 08.09.2005 (Annexure A-1). 2(ii) On the basis of final seniority list of the Surveyors dated 08.09.2005 (Annexure A-1), the respondents issued office order dated 27.09.2005 (Annexure A-2), promoting the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5 as JEs (Civil) on ad hoc basis. The name of the petitioner is at Sr. No.6, whereas names of respondents No.3 to 5 figure below the petitioner i.e. at Sr. Nos. 7, 11 and 10, respectively, in this office order. Their seniority positions from the seniority list of Surveyors have also been depicted in this office order against their respective names. 2(iii) A provisional seniority list of JEs (Civil) was circulated by the respondents vide Annexure A-3, depicting the position of the JEs as on 31.12.2014. Here again, the petitioner has been reflected as senior to respondents No.3 to 5. He has been assigned seniority at Sr.No.377, whereas, respondents No.3 to 5 have been assigned seniority positions at Sr. Nos. 378, 382 and, 381, respectively. 2(iv) On 17.03.2017, provisional seniority list of JEs (Civil) as it stood on 31.12.2016, was circulated vide Annexure A-4. Here again, the petitioner has been reflected as senior to respondents No.3 to 5. He has been assigned seniority at Sr.No.377, whereas, respondents No.3 to 5 have been assigned seniority positions at Sr. Nos. 378, 382 and, 381, respectively. 2(iv) On 17.03.2017, provisional seniority list of JEs (Civil) as it stood on 31.12.2016, was circulated vide Annexure A-4. In this seniority list, a departure was made from earlier existing seniority list inasmuch as the petitioner, who was earlier being shown as senior to the private respondents, was now shown their junior. He was assigned seniority position No.379, whereas, respondents No.3 and 4 were assigned seniority over him at Sr. Nos. 372 and 373, respectively. Respondent No.5 again figured below the petitioner at seniority position No.382. The petitioner represented on 21.08.2017 against the downgrading of his seniority position in the seniority list of JEs dated 17.03.2017. The representation was rejected on 30.12.2017. In the meanwhile, the respondents issued notification dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure A-6), ordering placement of respondents No.3 to 5 as Assistant Engineers (Civil). 2(v) It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner has filed the instant petition, seeking following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That the impugned action as contained in the Annexure A-6 qua the respondent No 3 to 6 wherein they have been promoted as Assistant Engineer may very kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to consider and promote the applicant as Assistant Engineer from the date from which respondent No.3 to 6 (who are junior to the applicant) have been promoted and further be directed to give all consequential benefits including seniority and monitory benefit w.e.f. 09.10.2017. (b) That the respondent No.2 be directed to redraw the seniority list and place the applicant on the same position i.e. at Sr. No.372 on which he was placed vide Annexure A-2 i.e. seniority list as it stood on 31.12.2014.” 3. Contentions: - 3(i) The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had figured above respondents No.3 to 5 in the final seniority list of Surveyors issued on 08.09.2005. This seniority list has not been altered by the respondents till date. The petitioner and private respondents were promoted on 27.09.2015 to the post of JEs (Civil) on the basis of seniority list of Surveyors. The petitioner, thus, is to be ranked senior to the private respondent as JE (Civil). This seniority list has not been altered by the respondents till date. The petitioner and private respondents were promoted on 27.09.2015 to the post of JEs (Civil) on the basis of seniority list of Surveyors. The petitioner, thus, is to be ranked senior to the private respondent as JE (Civil). He was accordingly shown senior to the private respondents in the promotion order dated 27.09.2015 as well as in the tentative seniority list of JEs issued on 31.12.2014. The respondents cannot downgrade petitioner’s seniority in the provisional seniority list of JEs issued on 17.03.2017 without complying with the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondents have altered the seniority position of the parties as JEs without altering their seniority positions in the seniority list of Surveyors. This action is impermissible in service jurisprudence. 3(ii) The private respondents have chosen not to defend themselves. They have been proceeded ex-parte. Learned Additional Advocate General reiterated the submissions made by the respondents in their reply. The gist of the pleadings of the official respondents and submissions made on their behalf have been noticed in two orders passed in the matter on 30.05.2022 and 05.08.2022. On 30.05.2022, taking note of the pleadings and submissions advanced on behalf of the official respondents, following order was passed: - “In the final seniority list of the Surveyors in the I & Ph. Department, as it stood on 31.12.2004 (Annexure A-1), the date of regularization of the petitioner has been reflected as 21.09.2002, whereas that of respondent No.6 as 04.12.2002, respondent No.3 as 07.12.2002, respondent No.5 as 07.12.2002 and respondent No.4 again as 07.12.2002. Whereas in the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2, it has been submitted that these private respondents were regularized as Surveyors on 01.01.1998, 01.01.2000, 01.01.2000 and 01.01.2000 respectively. Let respondents No.1 and 2 to produce record in respect of the factual submissions made in the reply. The respondents to also apprise as to whether final seniority list of Surveyors as it stood on 31.12.2004 (Annexure A-1) was re-drawn in accordance with law and whether any notice was issued to the petitioner for changing the seniority list of Surveyors/Junior engineers.” In compliance to the above order, respondents filed a supplementary affidavit, relevant contents whereof were noticed in the order dated 05.08.2022, which read as under:- “The respondents/State have filed supplementary affidavit pursuant to order dated 31.05.2022. In terms of this affidavit, there were certain errors in respect of date of regularization in the service record of both the petitioners. Petitioner Rajinder Singh, who was earlier shown to have been regularized on 21.09.2002 is now reflected to have been regularized on 01.01.2000, whereas petitioner Rakesh Soni, who was earlier shown to have been regularized on 05.12.2002 is now shown to have been regularized on 01.01.2001. Para-4 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents/State runs as under :- “4. That it is respectfully submitted that the original service record was obtained from field offices and after scrutinizing/examining the record, it has been found that petitioner in CWPOA 3209/2020 titled as Rajinder Singh Vs State of HP has been retrospectively regularized we.f. 01.01.2000 as Surveyor instead of 21.09.2002 and petitioner in CWPOA No. 3217 of 2020 Rakesh Soni Vs. State of H.P. has been retrospectively regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2001 as Surveyor instead of 05.12.2002, and the respondent No:-6 in CWPOA No. 3209/2020 has been retrospectively regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2002. Now, the date of regularization of petitioners vis-a-vis respondents as Surveyor have been corrected and position of both the petitioners vis-a-vis the respondents in CWPOA 3209/2020- titled as Rajinder Singh Vs. State of H.P & CWPOA No. 3217 of 2020 Rakesh Soni Vs. State of H.P has been corrected and is given as under Sr.No. Name S/Shri Date of Birth Date of regularization/Promotion as Surveyor/Junior Engineer on regular basis. 1 2 3 4 268 Mohinder Pal 11.04.65 01.01.98/27.09.05 269 Pawan Kumar 15.06.67 01.01.2000/27.09.05 270 271-A Hans Raj Rajinder Singh 15.09.67 21.10.69 01.01.2000/27.09.05 01.01.2000/27.09.05 271-B 272 Rakesh Soni Kamal Kumar 27.02.68 12.04.70 01.01.2001/27.09.05 01.01.2002/27.09.05 ” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dates of regularization of private respondents have been incorrectly depicted in the table in the above extracted para. Faced with this, learned Deputy Advocate General, seeks time to produce record of regularization of the parties more particularly pertaining to their dates of appointment as Surveyors on daily waged basis.” During hearing of the case today, the official respondents reiterated the submissions already noticed in the afore extracted orders. 4. Observations: - 4(i) According to the official respondents, private respondents No. 3 to 5 had represented that they had been regularized as Surveyors from retrospective dates during the year 2008. 4. Observations: - 4(i) According to the official respondents, private respondents No. 3 to 5 had represented that they had been regularized as Surveyors from retrospective dates during the year 2008. The official respondents acted on the representation of the private respondents and corrected the dates of regularization of respondents No.3 to 5 in the seniority list of JEs and made respondents No. 3 and 4 as seniors to the petitioner in the provisional seniority list of JEs (Civil), circulated on 17.03.2017. It is, however, an admitted position that final seniority list of Surveyors has not been redrawn. The Seniority list of Surveyors even now stands as it was circulated on 08.09.2005 (Annexure A-1), wherein petitioner is enjoying higher seniority position than that of respondents No.3 to 5. It was on the basis of this seniority list of Surveyors that the official respondents had promoted the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5 as JEs (Civil) vide office order dated 27.09.2005 (Annexure A-2). The name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No.1, whereas names of respondents No.3 to 5 figure below him in this office order. Even in the seniority list of JEs (Civil) circulated on 31.12.2014 (Annexure A-3), the petitioner enjoyed higher seniority position than enjoyed by the private respondents. It is not decipherable from the record as to under what circumstances, the private respondents were allowed to belatedly represent against their seniority positions in the seniority list of JEs, entertainment of their such representations and subsequent downgrading of seniority position of the petitioner in the seniority list of JEs issued on 17.03.2017. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing to place his case/objections against downgrading of his seniority position as JE. The least that was expected from the respondents was that they would give an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter as he would have been adversely affected by the downgrading of his seniority position as JE in the event of allowing of representation of respondents No. 3 to 5. More so, when promotion of the private parties to the post of JEs (Civil) was made on the basis of final seniority list of Surveyors dated 08.09.2005 wherein petitioner ranked senior to respondents No. 3 to 5. More so, when promotion of the private parties to the post of JEs (Civil) was made on the basis of final seniority list of Surveyors dated 08.09.2005 wherein petitioner ranked senior to respondents No. 3 to 5. Without redrawing the final seniority list of Surveyors, whether it was open for the official respondents to re-draw the seniority list of JEs on 17.03.2017 by downgrading the seniority position of the petitioner therein, is an important aspect, which has not been looked into by the respondents at all. 4(ii) It would be appropriate to notice (1976) 1 SCC 599 , Malcom Lawrence Cecil D’Souza Verus Union of India and others, wherein following observations were made in context of the point in issue that seniority list cannot be unsettled after a long time as it results in administrative complications & difficulties and causes uncertainty amongst public servants: - “8 …..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 anyone 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. 9. Although security of service cannot be used as a shield against administrative action for lapse of a public servant, by and large one of the essential requirements of contentment and efficiency in public services is a feeling of security. It is difficult no doubt to guarantee such security in all its varied aspects, it should at least be possible, to ensure that matters like one's position in the seniority list after having been settled for once should not be liable to be reopened after lapse of many years at the instance of a party who has during the intervening period chosen to keep quiet. Raking up old matters like seniority after a long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. Raking up old matters like seniority after a long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should be given a quietus after lapse of some time.” In (1992) 4 SCC 455 , S.B. Dogra Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, the principle was reiterated that seniority positions holding the field for the last several years should not invariably be interfered. If the employee concerned did not file his representation within the prescribed period after the publication of provisional gradation list, then his representation should be rejected out rightly. Relevant observations are as under: - “10. ………. In the circumstances, the Tribunal should have been slow in interfering the seniority which was holding the field for the last several years. That is the view expressed by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. . In that case the seniority was fixed according to the length of service in regard to the classified officers and the grades held by those officers. No objection was, filed by the respondent to the provisional gradation list so prepared. He filed an objection only after the final gradation list was published. Contending that the services rendered by the Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh officers prior to the coming into force of the Sales Tax Acts in the respective states should not have been counted for the purpose of determining the seniority of the respondent. The High Court allowed the belated representation and hence the matter was brought before this Court in appeal. This Court held that after the reorganisation of the States it was obligatory to prepare a common gradation list of the officers of the various departments so that the officers who were allocated to the new State did not suffer any prejudice. For that a tentative or provisional gradation list was directed to be prepared with a view to giving an opportunity to the officers whose seniority was determined in the list to make their representations in order to satisfy the Government regarding any mistake or error that may have crept in. If the employee concerned did not file his representation within the period prescribed after the date of the publication of the provisional gradation list, then his representation should have been rejected outright. If the employee concerned did not file his representation within the period prescribed after the date of the publication of the provisional gradation list, then his representation should have been rejected outright. It is erroneous to contend that the employee concerned should have waited for filing his representation or objection until the final gradation list was published. Therefore, the representation filed by the respondent long after the expiry of the time mentioned in the Gazette publishing the provisional gradation list was rejected as belated. The observations made in this judgment apply with all force to the fact situation in the case before us.” In AIR 1986 SC 2086 , K.R. Mudgal and others Versus R.P. Singh and others, the inter-se seniority was challenged 18 years after the issuance of first seniority list. The petition was dismissed on the ground of laches with following observations. Relevant paras read as under:- “7. The respondents in the writ petition raised a preliminary objection to the writ petition stating that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Although the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not disposed of the above writ petition on the ground of delay, we feel that in the circumstances of this case the writ petition should have been rejected on the ground of delay alone. The first draft seniority list of the Assistants was issued in the year 1958 and it was duly circulated amongst all the concerned officials. In that list the writ petitioners had been shown below the respondents. No objections were received from the petitioners against the seniority list. Subsequently, the seniority lists were again issued in 1961 and 1965 but again no objections were raised by the writ petitioners, to the seniority list of 1961, but only the petitioner No. 6 in the writ petition represented against the seniority list of 1965. We have already mentioned that the 1968 seniority list in which the writ petitioners had been shown above the respondents had been issued on a misunderstanding of the Office Memorandum of 1959 on the assumption that the 1949 Office Memorandum was not applicable to them. The June 1975 seniority list was prepared having regard to the decision in Ravi Varma's case (AIR 1972 SC 676) (supra) and the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the writ petitions filed by respondent Nos. The June 1975 seniority list was prepared having regard to the decision in Ravi Varma's case (AIR 1972 SC 676) (supra) and the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the writ petitions filed by respondent Nos. 7 and 36 and thus the mistake that had crept into the 1968 list was rectified. Thus the list was finalised in January, 1976. The petitioners who filed the writ petition should have in the ordinary course questioned the principle on the basis of which the seniority lists were being issued from time to time from the year 1958 and the promotions which were being made on the basis of the said lists within a reasonable time. For the first time they filed the writ petition in the High Court in the year 1976 nearly 18 years after the first draft seniority list was published in the year 1958. Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by the writ petitions filed after several years as in this case. It is essential that anyone who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the court as early as possible as otherwise in addition to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the Government servants there would also be administrative complications and difficulties. Unfortunately, in this case even after nearly 32 years the dispute regarding the appointment of some of the respondents to the writ petition is still lingering in this Court. In these circumstances we consider that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on the ground of laches. The facts of this case are more or less similar to the facts in R.S. Makashi & Ors. vs. I.M. Menon & Ors., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 69 ; ( AIR 1982 SC 101 ). The facts of this case are more or less similar to the facts in R.S. Makashi & Ors. vs. I.M. Menon & Ors., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 69 ; ( AIR 1982 SC 101 ). In the said decision this Court observed at page 100 (of CSR) : at page 115 of AIR) thus: "In these circumstances, we consider that the High Court was wrong in over-ruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should be dismissed on the preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority, rank and promotions which had accrued to a large number of respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened between the passing of the impugned Resolution and the institution of the writ petition. We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 22, ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should have been dismissed." 10. We feel that in the circumstances of this case, we should not embark upon on and enquiry into the merits of the case and that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches alone.” 4(iii) The representations preferred by private respondents No. 3 to 5 were statedly concerning their dates of regularization as Surveyors. The dates of filing of such representations have not been indicated in the reply. The official respondents adopted a novel mechanism in deciding the representation of the private respondents inasmuch as the provisional seniority list of JEs was re-drawn on 17.03.2017 without changing the final seniority list of Surveyors. To a query of the Court, learned Additional Advocate General, on the basis of instructions admitted, that the positions in the seniority list of JEs are dependent upon the seniority positions of the incumbents in the seniority list as Surveyors. If that be so, then without re-drawing the final seniority list of Surveyors, perhaps it was not open for the official respondents to change the seniority list of JEs. More so, when change sought by respondents No. 3 to 5 pertained to dates of regularization as Surveyors/Surveyors’ seniority positions. If that be so, then without re-drawing the final seniority list of Surveyors, perhaps it was not open for the official respondents to change the seniority list of JEs. More so, when change sought by respondents No. 3 to 5 pertained to dates of regularization as Surveyors/Surveyors’ seniority positions. Without altering the seniority list of the Surveyors, the respondents could not have altered the seniority list of JEs and that too without complying with the provisions of the principles of natural justice. 4(iv) It is also seen from the record that even in the impugned seniority list of JEs, re-drawn by the respondents on 17.03.2017, though respondents No.3 and 4 have been made seniors to the petitioner, yet respondent No.5 still figures therein as his junior. Despite this, in the notification issued on 09.10.2017 (Annexure A-6), respondent No.5 who was junior to the petitioner even in the impugned re-drawn seniority list of JEs, was placed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) ignoring the claim of petitioner. Why the case of the petitioner was not considered for placement as Assistant Engineer (AE) and why the cases of private respondent No.5 was considered for placement as Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide notification dated 09.10.2017 is not forthcoming from the pleadings. 5. The sum total of above discussion is that Final Seniority list of Surveyors was issued by the respondents on 08.09.2005 wherein petitioner had been reflected as senior to respondents No. 3 to 5. There is no change in this seniority list of Surveyors till date. Based on this seniority list of Surveyors, petitioner and private respondents were further promoted as JEs on 27.09.2005. Petitioner was shown as senior to respondents No. 3 to 5 in the provisional seniority list of JEs showing the position as on 31.12.2014. Respondents No. 3 to 5 represented for correcting their dates of regularization as Surveyors. Without any regard to delay and laches, without complying with principles of natural justice, without giving opportunity to petitioner to place his objections, who would have been adversely affected, the official respondents redrew the provisional seniority list of JEs on 17.03.2017 now making respondents No. 3 and 4 as seniors to the petitioner. All this was done ignoring the fact that the seniority position in the seniority list of JEs are virtually dependent upon positions in the final seniority list of Surveyors. All this was done ignoring the fact that the seniority position in the seniority list of JEs are virtually dependent upon positions in the final seniority list of Surveyors. Therefore, without redrawing the final seniority list of Surveyors, the seniority position of the JEs could not have been altered. Learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of instructions submitted that final seniority list of JEs is under process of finalization. Yet another significant aspect of the matter is that even in the impugned seniority list of JEs, petitioner’s seniority position though has been downgraded, but even then, he still ranks senior to respondent No. 5, yet for placement to the promotional posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), his name has not been considered, whereas respondent No. 5 has been placed as Assistant Engineers (Civil) vide annexure A-6 dated 09.10.2017. In view of the above discussions, following directions are issued in the facts and circumstances of the matter: - (i) The official respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for placement to the promotional post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) from the date the case of his junior i.e. respondent No.5 was considered under notification dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure A-2). This, be done within a period of three weeks from today. (ii) In light of observations made above, the petitioner is permitted to place his objections to the provisional seniority list of JEs dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure A-4) within a period of four weeks from today, which shall be decided by the respondents/competent authority alongwith the representations of respondents No. 3 to 5 within four weeks thereafter in accordance with law. Decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5. Present petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.