JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The petition has been filed seeking following substantive reliefs:- “.i. That the impugned notification dated 28.12.2021, Annexure P-13 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. All the proceedings consequent to which notification dated 28.12.2021 have been issued may also be held illegal and set aside; ii. That the respondent department may be directed to convene DPC from due date and consider and promote the petitioner as Director Health and Family Welfare to the Government of Himachal Pradesh with all consequential benefits.” 2. The factual matrix in the case at hand is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Medical Officer on adhoc basis on 13.08.1991. Thereafter, on 13.12.1992, the petitioner was appointed on regular basis through selection by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. The final seniority list of Medical Officers, as it stood on 30.03.2000, was issued on 05.03.2001. 3. Subsequent to the aforesaid, the petitioner was promoted as a Block Medical Officer on 08.11.2010. The tentative seniority list of Block Medical Officers, as it stood on 01.07.2013, was circulated on 25.07.2013. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as a Chief Medical Officer (CMO) on 27.12.2016. The promotion was to take effect on 24.05.2016. The tentative seniority list of CMO/DDHS/Medical Superintendent/Principals (Training) as it stood on 01.11.2017 was circulated on 18.11.2017. 5. That one Dr. Keshav Ram (respondent No.10) had filed a representation dated 23.02.2019. In the said representation, the said respondent No.10, had challenged the position assigned to him in the final seniority list of Deputy Directors/CMO/ Medical Superintendent/ Principal (Training), as it stood on 01.11.2017. The contention of the said respondent No.10 was that the position assigned to the petitioner above him was not appropriate for the reason that the petitioner was junior in the feeder post of Medical Officer and the selection list drawn by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. 6. That on consideration of representation of respondent No.10 (Dr. Keshav Ram) a review Departmental Promotion Committee (for short “DPC”) was held on 20. 02.2020 and the following was recorded therein: “The Committee, after perusing the final seniority list of MOs as it stood on 30.03.2000, issued on 05.03.2001 and the assessment already made by the original DPC, recommended to place the name of Dr. Devender Dutt Sharma at Sr. No. 2-A in between Dr. Sushil Chander (Sr. No. 766) and Dr. Devender Kumar Sharma, (Sr. Devender Dutt Sharma at Sr. No. 2-A in between Dr. Sushil Chander (Sr. No. 766) and Dr. Devender Kumar Sharma, (Sr. No. 802 A-I) in the panel for the year 2010.” 7. That on 02.09.2021, the present petitioner was promoted as a Joint Director. Thereafter, a review meeting of the DPC was held on 3.12.2021 for reviewing the recommendations of the DPC held on 12.04.2016, 31.12.2016 and 01.09.2021. The review DPC held on 3.12.2021 observed as follows: “As per general principle for promotion, the list of eligible officers is prepared strictly in order of their position in the seniority list but in the instant case it was by an omission that a junior medical officer was placed above his seniors which is required to be rectified to this extent by reviewing the minutes of the meeting held on dated 12.04.2016, 31.12.2016 and 01.09.2021 by placing the name of Dr. Devinder Dutt Sharma at appropriate place of promotion in the list of eligible officers.” 8. In pursuance to the aforesaid, the DPC after perusing the final seniority list of Medical Officer, as it stood on 31.03.2000, issued on 05.03.2001, recommended the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director/CMO w.e.f. 09.01.2017. Previously as has been stated supra, the petitioner had been promoted as a CMO on 27.12.2016 w.e.f. 24.05.2016. 9. After having taken a decision to promote the petitioner to the post of Chief Medical Officer w.e.f. 9.01.2017 and further to withdraw the promotion order of the petitioner to the post of Joint Director Health dated 2.09.2021 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.12.2021. A perusal of the aforesaid notice appended alongwith the petition, Annexure P-10, clearly reflects that it is for the first time the petitioner was informed of representation (s) made by Dr. Keshav Ram, Dr. Harsharan Kaur and Dr. Ghanshyam Upadhaya for rectifying their promotion to the post of Joint Director keeping in view the Notification dated 11.03.2010. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of two days to make a representation qua the notice dated 18.12.2021, issued in this regard. 10. In pursuance to the said notice a representation dated 20.12.2021 was made by the petitioner, wherein extension of 7 days time to file a reply was made. Since the same was beyond the stipulated two days time, therefore, while passing the impugned Notification dated 28.12.2021, the same was considered and rejected. 10. In pursuance to the said notice a representation dated 20.12.2021 was made by the petitioner, wherein extension of 7 days time to file a reply was made. Since the same was beyond the stipulated two days time, therefore, while passing the impugned Notification dated 28.12.2021, the same was considered and rejected. Other than the aforesaid, the petitioner had submitted a reply dated 24.12.2021 addressed to the Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) and received in the Office of Director of Health Services on 27.12.2021. 11. Thereafter, vide the impugned Notification dated 28. 12.2021 appended alongwith Annexure P-13, the petitioner was ordered to be promoted to the post of Block Medical Officer w.e.f. 09.01.2017. Further the promotion given to the petitioner to the post of Joint Director vide Annexure P- 9 dated 02.09.2021 was withdrawn. 12. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the main grievance of the petitioner is that on a consideration of representation dated 23.02.2019, on 20.02.2020 seniority positions which were undisputed since 5.03.2001 i.e. in the case of Medical Officers, seniority positions as on 25.07.2013 i.e. in the case of Block Medical Officers, seniority positions as on 18.11.2017 in the case of seniority of CMOs/ DDHs/Medical Superintendents/ Principals (training) have now been ordered to be changed. It has been further contended that seniorities which had been fixed and had remained in existence for a reasonable period cannot be challenged after an unduly long period. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, seniority list, which had remained in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged should not have been disturbed. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (2010) 12 SCC Page 471 and a judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1218 of 2021, titled as Suresh Kapoor & others vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 01.12.2022. Besides the aforesaid, the petitioner has argued that Rules of natural justice in the case at hand have been observed more in their breach, rather than in their observance. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that before action could have been taken on the representation, filed belatedly by Dr. Keshav Ram on 23.02.2019, the same should have been forwarded to the petitioner for his response, as allowing of the same without hearing the petitioner would visit the petitioner with serious civil consequences. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that before action could have been taken on the representation, filed belatedly by Dr. Keshav Ram on 23.02.2019, the same should have been forwarded to the petitioner for his response, as allowing of the same without hearing the petitioner would visit the petitioner with serious civil consequences. Other than the aforesaid, the petitioner has argued that this is not a fit case for post decisional hearing, rather in the facts and attending circumstances the pre-decisional hearing was warranted. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that their action of rectifying the seniority list is well within their competence. Besides the aforesaid as per the respondents there is no infraction of Rules of natural justice in the case at hand. According to them, Notification dated 28.12.2021 i.e. Annexure P-13 is a decision arrived at after hearing the petitioner. The same according to them is, therefore, not a case of a post decisional hearing. 14. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is clearly evident that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Medical Officer way back in the year 1992. The final seniority list of Medical Officers as it stood on 30.03.2000 was issued on 05.03.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as a Block Medical Officer on 8.11.2010 and the seniority list of Block Medical Officer was circulated on 25.07.2013. In the same, the petitioner was senior to Dr. Keshav Ram, Dr. Harsharan Kaur and Dr. Ghanshyam Upadhaya. The same was never challenged or assailed by the aforesaid three individuals subsequent thereto promotions were effected to the post of Chief Medical Officer and the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Medical Officer on 27.12.2016 w.e.f. 24.05.2016. Herein again a seniority list was circulated on 08.11.2017. In the said list again, Dr. Keshav Ram, Dr. Harsharan Kaur and Dr. Ghanshyam Upadhaya were junior to the petitioner. The same was never assailed by the aforesaid three individuals. 15. It is only when a representation is filed on 23. 2.2019 by Dr. Keshav Ram that a review DPC is held on 20.02.2020. In pursuance to the aforesaid review DPC held on 20.02.2020, vide Notification dated 11.03.2020, the recommendations made for promoting the petitioner to the post of Block Medical Officer, in the panel for the year 2010, was altered. It is only when a representation is filed on 23. 2.2019 by Dr. Keshav Ram that a review DPC is held on 20.02.2020. In pursuance to the aforesaid review DPC held on 20.02.2020, vide Notification dated 11.03.2020, the recommendations made for promoting the petitioner to the post of Block Medical Officer, in the panel for the year 2010, was altered. As has already been stated supra, the seniority list pertaining to Block Medical Officers was circulated vide memo dated 25.07.2013. No objection qua the same were ever filed by the aforesaid three individuals namely Dr. Keshav Ram, Dr. Harsharan Kaur and Dr. Ghanshyam Upadhaya. Hence, to lay a challenge to the same in the year 2019 and to get the same reviewed in the year 2020 is patently illegal as the same has not been done within the prescribed period i.e. 3 to 4 years as laid down in the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court as relied upon by the petitioner. 16. Besides the aforesaid, once a representation laying challenge to the seniority assigned to the petitioner had been filed by Dr. Keshav Ram on 23.02.2019. A copy of the same should have been forwarded to the petitioner for his response. The same was essential in order to comply with the Rules of natural justice, as the allowing of the aforesaid representation was to have serious civil consequences on the petitioner. Rather than following the aforesaid procedure, the respondents-authority held a review DPC made alterations in the settled seniority of Block Medical Officer. Thereafter, held a review DPC on 3.12.2021, whereby the date of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Chief Medical Officer was changed from 24.05.2016 to 09.01.2017 and further a recommendation to withdraw promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Director had also been taken. 17. Post taking the aforesaid decision a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.12.2021 vide Annexure P-10, the petitioner was, therefore, subjected to a post decisional hearing. The case in hand is not a fit case wherein a post decisional hearing should have taken place. Rather, to the contrary before holding the review DPCs dated 20.02.2020 and 03.12.2021, the petitioner should have been heard on the representation made by Dr. Keshav Ram dated 23.02.2019. 18. Besides the aforesaid, the time afforded to respond to the notice was a mere two days. Rather, to the contrary before holding the review DPCs dated 20.02.2020 and 03.12.2021, the petitioner should have been heard on the representation made by Dr. Keshav Ram dated 23.02.2019. 18. Besides the aforesaid, the time afforded to respond to the notice was a mere two days. Though a response was filed wherein a specific objection was taken with respect to the challenging a seniority list and changing the same after a period of more than 10 years. The said representation so made by the petitioner is alleged to have been considered and rejected while passing the impugned order, Annexure P-13, but from a perusal of the same it is clearly evident that issue of a belated challenge has nowhere been considered in the impugned order. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Notification dated 28th December, 2021 is quashed in so far as it pertains to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to restore the seniority of the petitioner prior to the DPCs conducted on 20.02.2020 and 13.12.2021 with all consequential benefits. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.