2025:HHC:39455 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7467 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.11.2025 Rakesh Kumar Chandel …Petitioner Versus High Court of H. P. & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No. 1-H.P. High Court. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Challenge herein is primarily to the action of the respondent No. 1 whereby the final seniority list dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-12) was circulated and the petitioner has been placed at Sr. No. 9 whereas private respondent has been placed at Sr. No. 8 for the post of Section Officer. 2. While issuing notice of motion on 06.05.2025, the only contention as such was noticed that there was no cause to file the objection on an earlier occasion, since the petitioner was always shown senior to private respondent. It is not disputed that the private respondent-Jasvinder Singh has been proceeded ex parte as he chosen not to contest the petition vide order 2 2025:HHC:39455 dated 01.09.2025. The order passed by us on 06.05.2025, reads as under:- “Inter alia refers to the promotion order dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure P-9), wherein it has been pointed out that the petitioner and private respondent were promoted as Section Officer. It is submitted that the combined tentative seniority list dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) of the employees to this Court along with erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had been prepared and objection had been called for and the petitioner had been shown senior to the private respondent in the said seniority list. Similarly, another tentative seniority list was circulated on 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-11), the position remained same, as the petitioner was shown at Serial No.9, whereas private respondent was shown at Serial No.10. The final seniority list dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-12), would however go on to show that the petitioner has been placed at Sr. No.9 and private respondent was placed at Serial No.8. It is submitted that there is no cause as such to file the objection on an earlier occasion, since petitioner was always shown senior to the private respondent. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within one week.” 3. In the reply filed as such by the High Court, the change in the seniority is on the ground that the representation has been filed by the said private respondent qua the correct application of 7:1 ratio for the post of Section Officer and the fact that the name of one employee of the cadre of Superintendent 3 2025:HHC:39455 Grade-II was inadvertently not reckoned to exhaust the ratio of 7:1, whereas the ratio of 1 was applicable to the post of Revisor. 4. Counsel for the High Court has placed on record the copy of the proceedings dated 09.04.2025 of the Special Committee constituted for deciding the representation, whereby the said decision was taken and Mr. Jasvinder Singh was held entitled for reflecting his position at serial No. 9, instead of serial No. 10 and on the basis of the recommendation apparently in pursuance of the said decision of the Committee, the consequent changes have been made. It is, thus, apparent that the principle of natural justice has been violated by accepting the said representation without calling upon the petitioner to file his objection to the representation, if any, by changing the seniority of the petitioner. 5. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that a fresh call is required to be taken by respondent No. 1 by putting the petitioner to notice, as to why his seniority has been altered and why he has been placed at Serial No. 9 instead of serial No. 8 of the seniority list of the Section Officer, as earlier proposed. 6. Resultantly, we direct that the respondent shall take action by issuing the requisite show cause notice within a period of one week from today and it is open to the petitioner to reply to the same within a week and thereafter a considered decision 4 2025:HHC:39455 shall be taken whether the petitioner is required to be given the benefit of seniority qua respondent No. 2 or other employees. 7. Needless to say, if any, further rectification is to be done, effecting any employee, the principle of natural justice will again be followed in finalising the seniority list for the post of Section Officer. 8. Another fact, which has been brought to our notice that in the final seniority list (Annexure P-12), the date of promotion of the petitioner is shown as 05.01.2023, whereas the private respondent-Jasvinder Singh is shown as 15.11.2022. The reference is made to the promotion order dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure P-9) of the two officers, as such, whereby both of them were promoted on 15.11.2022 as Section Officers. Accordingly, the office shall also take this aspect into consideration. 9. Reference is also made to the notification dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-13), whereby the date as such of occupying the post of the Section Officer was modified from 15.11.2022 to 05.01.2023. It is the case of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that this is also done without any notice. 10. Accordingly, both the aspects shall be taken into consideration by respondent No.1. 5 2025:HHC:39455 11. Keeping in view the fact that the winter vacation is to start from 10.01.2026, we expect that this exercise shall be finalised before closing of the Court. 12. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 19th November, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)