IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.19154 & 19152 of 2025 Decided on: 18.12.2025. 1. CWP No. 19154/2025 Naresh Kumar Gupta …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 19152 of 2025 Surender Pal Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. L.N. Shrarma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondents in both the matters. These writ petitions involves common question of law and fact, hence, with consent of learned counsel for the petitioner(s) have been taken together for disposal. However for convenience, facts of CWP No.19154/20205 are being referred to hereinafter. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. Petitioner aged 55 years and presently serving as Assistant Architect in the office of Chief Architect, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department seeks directions to the respondents to grant him notional seniority w.e.f. 3.6.1996 i.e. date of his interview with all consequential benefits. The case set up by the petitioner is that:- i) Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission called for the names of eligible candidates from employment exchange for the post of Senior Planning Draftsman in the year 1995. Petitioner’s name was also sponsored by the concerned employment exchange for the post. Call letter was issued to the petitioner to appear in the screening test on 18.10.1995. ii) Petitioner appeared before the interview board on 03.06.1996. The interview process was completed but the result thereof was withheld due to filing of an Original Application before the learned erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal by some candidates assailing the selection process, wherein an interim stay was granted on the declaration of the result. The said order was assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Writ Petition No. 158/2002. Pursuant to the decision thereof, the result of selection process for the post in question was declared and petitioner was issued an appointment order on 24.08.2005. The petitioner submitted his joining on 24.08.2005. 3 iii) Based upon petitioner’s seniority position, he was promoted to the post of Head Draftsman on 23.07.2009. He was further promoted to the post of Architectural Assistant Class-I (Gazetted) on 27.12.2017. On the basis of recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee, he was further promoted to the post of Assistant Architect, Class-I (Gazetted) on 06.11.2018. Petitioner now claims following reliefs:- i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant notional seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 03.06.1996, the date of his interview, for the purpose of fixation of seniority, pension and other consequential benefits, excluding monetary benefits for the period prior to actual appointment ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari and thereby quash the order dated 06.01.2025 ( Annexure -P/7) being contrary to the well settled principles of the service jurisprudence. Petitioner’s claim of notional seniority w.e.f. 03.06.1996 with all consequential benefits not only suffers from absolutely unexplained delay and laches but is also hit by doctrine of acquiescence. Petitioner has been promoted further and further on the basis of his seniority position which he had throughout from the year 2005 onwards. All these promotions effected in the years 2009, 2017 and 2018 were accepted by him. Petitioner never raised any objection against his seniority position, placement and also against the subsequent promotions on that basis on the post of Head Draftsman, Architectural Assistant (Class-I) and Assistant Architect (Class-I). The first ever representation as per pleaded case made by 4 the petitioner was on 10.12.2024. Petitioner’s claim suffers not only from delay, laches and acquiescence but the relief claimed would have cascading adverse effect on several other employees in the matter of seniority and promotion who have not even been impleaded as parties to the writ petition. Consequently, for all these reasons, these petitions fail and same are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 18, 2025 Judge yogesh