( 2025:HHC:30049 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 784 of 2019 along with CWPOA No. 578 of 2019. Decided on : 3 rd September, 2025. 1. CWPOA No. 784 of 2019. Man Chand & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. 2. CWPOA No. 578 of 2019. Man Chand & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Vaishali Lakhanpal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. P.K. Nadda, Addl. A.G., for the respondents-State. Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate, for private respondents in CWPOA No. 578 of 2019. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Both these petitions have been heard and are being decided together as common questions of fact and law have arisen. 2. Petitioners were holding posts of Statistical Assistant in the department of Labour and Employment. The 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:30049 ) next promotional post available to the Statistical Assistant was that of Employment Officer. Indisputably, another feeder cadre for the promotional post of Employment Officer was that of Senior Assistants. 3. As per the recruitment and promotion rules for the post of Employment Officer, Class-III, Non-gazetted in the department of Labour and Employment, Himachal Pradesh, Senior Assistants and Statistical Assistants possessing six years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service in respective grades rendered upto 31.03.1998 were eligible for promotion to the post of Employment Officer. For the purpose of promotion to the post of Employment Officer a combined seniority of Senior Assistants and Statistical Assistants based on length of service without disturbing their cadre-wise inter se seniority was to be prepared. 4. The combined seniority list of Statistical Assistants and Senior Assistants was circulated on 10.08.2000 (Annexure A-3) showing the seniority position as on 30.06.2000. On the basis of this seniority list, the private respondents in CWPOA No. 578 of 2019 were placed higher in seniority position to the petitioners. 3 ( 2025:HHC:30049 ) 5. Grievance of the petitioners is that the private respondents in CWPOA No. 578 of 2019 have been shown senior to the petitioners by counting their adhoc service in the feeder category. It is the case of the petitioners that the State government had issued instructions prohibiting the adhoc promotion save and except in exceptional cases and for such reason the adhoc period of service of private respondents in feeder category could not have been taken into consideration. The petitioners have placed reliance on instructions issued by the department of Personnel, Government Himachal Pradesh on 05.03.1994, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure A-4 in CWPOA No. 784 of 2019. 6. The fact of the matter is that the private respondents were promoted on adhoc basis in the year 1994. There was no challenge to their promotion at that stage. That being so, to raise the challenge to the seniority position, fixed on the basis of adhoc promotions, in 2005 by way of CWPOA No. 578 of 2019 cannot be countenanced. Moreover, employer i.e. State Government has considered their adhoc promotion as valid. Evidently, in the instructions relied upon by the petitioner also there was no complete ban on adhoc promotion. 4 ( 2025:HHC:30049 ) 7. It can also been seen that the seniority list, Annexure A-3, was circulated in the year 2000. The first petition i.e. CWPOA No. 784 of 2019 was filed in the year 2004 and in that petition there was no challenge to the seniority list circulated in the year 2000. Thereafter the second petition bearing CWPOA No. 578 of 2019 was filed wherein challenge to the seniority list, Annexure A-3, was laid. Thus, the claim of the petitioners was clearly belated. There is no explanation as to why the seniority list Annexure A-3 was not challenged within reasonable time. As per the settled position of law, the challenge to seniority list has to be made by the aggrieved person at the earliest and the belated challenge is vulnerable as third party rights are likely to be affected. 8. In result, I do not find any merits in both the petitions and the same are dismissed accordingly with no order as to the costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 3rd September, 2025. (jai)