2025:HHC:25003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.3755 of 2019 Decided on: 29.07.2025 Hem Chand Sharma & others ...Petitioners Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent-University. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Heard. 2 The instant petition has been filed for following substantive reliefs: “a) That the impugned orders dated 9.11.2000 Annexure-16 and A7 may be quashed and set aside and the applicants may be directed to be promoted from the date ineligible persons were promoted with all consequential benefits. b) That the Respondents may be directed to delete the name of Hostel Assistants from the seniority list of laboratory attendants forthwith and redraw the seniority list of laboratory attendants as it stood on 31.10.1999. 2 2025:HHC:25003 c) That the Respondents may be directed to redesignate the post of Laboratory Attendant as Laboratory Assistants forthwith. 3. By way of prayer (a), the petitioners have sought quashing of orders A-6 and A-7, which are the promotion orders of private respondents to the post of Junior Technician from the feeder category of Laboratory Attendants. 4. The petitioners have shown their grievance against the aforesaid orders on the ground that private respondents were not eligible for being promoted to the post of Junior Technician as they did not have even the requisite essential qualification for holding the feeder post of Laboratory Attendants. 5. The case as set up by the petitioners is that for recruitment to the post of Laboratory Attendants, the minimum qualification was Matriculation and since none of the private respondents held that qualification, they were not entitled to be promoted to the post of Junior Technician. 6. The respondent-University has set up the defence that it has adopted the service Rules of the Himachal Pradesh University and in terms thereof the revised/amended Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Laboratory Attendants and Junior Technician were notified on 15.03.2000. As per these amended/revised Rules, for promotion to the post of Junior 3 2025:HHC:25003 Technician the minimum educational qualification and age as was prescribed for recruitment through direct process was not required. 7. Having heard both the sides as also having perused the material on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioners cannot succeed in the petition for the reasons detailed hereafter. 8. In the first instance, there is no challenge to the statutory recruitment and Promotion Rules, which have been revised/amended w.e.f. 15.03.2000. Evidently, the promotion orders under challenge in the instant petition were issued after these amended/revised Rules were notified. 9. As noticed above, in Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Technician the requirement of age and educational qualification had been done away with. That being so, the respondent-University cannot be said to have faulted in granting the promotions to the private respondents. 10. Viewed from another aspect, the petitioners otherwise cannot succeed as their petition is hopelessly time barred. It is their own case that even in the seniority list of Laboratory Assistants/Laboratory Attendants, as it stood on 01.04.1994, the private respondents were shown above the 4 2025:HHC:25003 petitioners. There is no explanation from the petitioners as to why the seniority list as it stood on 01.04.1994 was not challenged. Merely because the promotions were made in the year 2000 on the basis of seniority list, as it stood w.e.f. 1994, will not give a fresh lease of life or cause of action to the petitioners. Their cause of action, if any, had accrued in the year 1994 itself. 11. The alleged illegality on the basis of which the petitioners are trying to make out a cause of action even existed in the year 1994. The private respondents, if were without qualification in 2000, it was so in 1994 also. In such circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners after a huge delay is bound to fail on the principle of delay and laches. 12. It is more than settled that the seniority list having attained finality cannot be allowed to be disturbed after a long period of time for the obvious reason that various third party rights are created or evolved. 13. In light of above discussion, the petition is dismissed being without any merit along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 29th July, 2025 (vt)