2025:HHC:28177 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.299 of 2019 Reserved on: 12.08.2025 Date of Decision:20.08.2025 Moti Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate vice Ms.Shreya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. P.K. Nadda, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 8. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may be directed to implement the decision conveyed to the applicant on 8.8.1995 vide Annexure A-5 and place him at the appropriate position in the Final Seniority List of Sub-Inspectors (Wireless) (II) That the respondents may be directed to grant him promotion to the rank of Head Constable (Wireless) keeping in view his merit 2 2025:HHC:28177 as per Rule 13(1) of Chapter XII of Punjab Police Rules with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotions etc.” 2. The petitioner was appointed as Constable Operator in Wireless Wing of H.P. Police on 16.02.1981. The petitioner passed Radio Operator Grade-III course in the year 1982. He was promoted to the rank of Head Constable in 1984, Assistant Sub Inspector in 1989 and as Sub Inspector in1995. 3. The private respondents were promoted as Head Constables in the year 1982, as Assistant Sub Inspectors in the year 1987. Respondent No.4 was promoted as Sub Inspector in 1990 and respondents No.5 to 8 were promoted as Sub Inspectors in the year 1993. 4. The promotion of respondent No.4 to the rank of Sub Inspector was under out of turn promotion quota being outstanding sportsman. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he along with private respondents had qualified Radio Operator Grade-III, Grade-II and Grade-I courses together, but the private respondents were promoted to the ranks of Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector before the petitioner dehors the provisions contained in para 13.1 of Chapter 13 of Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3 2025:HHC:28177 6. As per petitioner, the Radio Operator Grade-III course was equivalent to lower class course of Himachal Pradesh Police and had its relevance for promotion to the rank of Head Constable. The petitioner contends that he had secured first position in the merit list of Radio Operator Grade-III course and hence, had become eligible for being promoted as Head Constable along with private respondents in the year 1982. 7. It is also alleged that the seniority positions of private respondents in the seniority list of Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors were wrongly drawn above the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has placed reliance on order dated 08.08.1995, passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Wireless, Himachal Pradesh on the representation of the petitioner, which reads as under: “The representation dated 11-11-94 regarding seniority of ASI/W Moti Ram was considered. The Seniority of Wireless operator was prepared after passing G-II Course on their merit, whereas the seniority should remain same as per after passing Grade-III course (basic course) as has been done in respect of other batches. As rules cannot be made for one batch only. Hence the order issued by then S.P/Wireless vide Mo. 13-3/w/86-2210-2310. 13.2.86, following to be deleted:- "In the order of merit shown against each" 4 2025:HHC:28177 The Seniority of all personnel mentioned in the order will be the same as was at the time of passing Grade-III opr. Course.” 9. Respondents No.1 to 3 and respondents No.4 to 8 have filed their separate replies. The defence as commonly raised by all the respondents is that the Radio Operator Grade-III course was not considered equivalent to Lower School Training course which was meant only for the promotion of general constabulary. The petitioner was recruited in Wireless Organization, in which Radio Operator Grade-III course was not for the purposes of promotion to the next higher rank. The gradation courses in the Wireless Organization were technical courses meant to achieve technical service requirements of the Organization. In order to encourage the increments of Wireless Organization for taking up the courses with interest, certain benefits in the shape of special pay were permissible. It was only after August 2000 that the Grade-III course for Radio Operator has been termed as a promotional course. 10. It is also the case of the respondents that the induction of private respondents as Constables in Wireless Organization was prior to the appointment of the petitioner to the said post, therefore, the private respondents were senior to the petitioner and accordingly they were promoted as Head 5 2025:HHC:28177 Constables at their own turn. Similarly, the promotion of private respondents as Assistant Sub Inspectors prior to petitioner was result of their senior position in the grade of Head Constable and to same effect was the result while promoting them as Sub Inspectors. Though, it has been admitted that the petitioner and private respondents had qualified Grade-III, Grade-II and Grade-I courses for Radio Operators together, but the acts in promoting the private respondents as Head Constables, Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors before the petitioner has been justified on the ground of their seniority over the petitioner. 11. The petitioner has also raised certain questions as to promotion of respondent No.4 as Sub Inspector under out of turn quota for outstanding sportsman. The allegations to that extent have been refuted by the private respondents and official respondents alike by justifying the benefit granted to respondent No.4 on the ground that he was granted out of turn promotion strictly in accordance with Rules and on the basis of his merit. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 13. At the outset, it is noticeable that the instant petition was filed in the year 2001 i.e. after about 19 years of the date of promotion of private respondents as Head Constables. Similarly, it can also be seen that the private respondents were promoted 6 2025:HHC:28177 as Assistant Sub Inspectors in the year 1987 and as sub inspectors in the year 1990/1993. The petitioner did not avail any remedy against the alleged injustice caused to him till 2001. 14. The petition suffers from extreme delay and latches. Initially, the petition was filed before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal under the provisions of Administrative Tribunal’s Act, which provided for a specific period of limitation. Even while considering such a petition under writ jurisdiction, in absence of any explanation for delay, the same cannot be entertained beyond a reasonable period of time. 15. Even otherwise, the specific defence of the respondents is that the private respondents were senior in the cadre of Constables in Wireless Organization to the petitioner. There is no rebuttal to this fact from the petitioner. The defence raised by the respondents that the Radio Operator Grade-III course till August 2000 was not a course meant for promotion to the next higher rank has also remained un-rebutted. In such circumstances, no fault can be found with the promotion of private respondents to the ranks of Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector before the petitioner. 16. The reliance by the petitioner on the order dated 08.08.1995 Annexure A-5 also does not help the cause of the petitioner for the reason that the said order only allowed the 7 2025:HHC:28177 seniority of all personnel to be maintained in same order as was at the time of passing Grade-III Operator Course. Since, the private respondents were senior to the petitioner, the maintenance of seniority as per aforesaid order would again not be of any avail to the petitioner. Even otherwise, to seek implementation of order passed in 1995 in the year 2001 cannot be said to be a bonafide exercise of right, more particularly when the seniority position of petitioner vis a vis the private respondents was not ordered to be disturbed even vide order Annexure A-5. 17. It is more than settled that the belated representations are not sufficient to revive the cause of action which had become stale. Order, Annexure A-5, apparently was issued on the representation of the petitioner dated 11.11.1994. The representation filed in the year 1994 with respect to alleged discrimination in the year 1982 cannot be said to be an act of bonafide exercise of the right. Similarly, the alleged representation filed by the petitioner on 21.12.2000 again will not revive the stale and time barred claim of the petitioner. 18. The aforesaid observations gain more importance in the context of the dispute raised by the petitioner as to seniority vis a vis private respondent. The absence of challenge to the seniority position within the reasonable time estops the person from challenging it belatedly for the obvious reason that belated 8 2025:HHC:28177 challenge to the seniority position potentially affect the third party rights. 19. In result, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge August 20, 2025 (vt)