2025:UHC:3486-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB 105/2019 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Shashank Pandey and Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional CSC, for the State. Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2. (2) Petitioner has challenged judgment and order dated 28.11.2018, passed by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun in Claim Petition No. 18/DB/2016. By said judgment, claim petition filed by the petitioner, challenging a seniority list issued on 6.1.2015, was dismissed on the ground that because of ‘catch up rule’, engrafted in Rule 24(2) of the U.P. Forest Corporation Service Regulations, 1985, persons senior to petitioner in the feeder post, who were promoted later, will regain their seniority upon promotion to the post of Divisional Logging Manager. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that U.P. Forest Corporation had earlier finalised the seniority list, in which petitioner was placed above the private respondents, which could not have been reversed by placing petitioner below persons who were earlier treated as junior to him. This, according to petitioner, is not permissible, as long standing seniority cannot be unsettled. 2025:UHC:3486-DB (4) Ms. Seema Sah, learned Counsel for Uttarakhand Forest Corporation, submits that all parties including petitioner and private respondents have retired from service and the dispute, now, is of academic interest only. She has drawn attention to the prayer made by petitioner in his claim petition, which is quoted in the impugned judgment. From the prayer clause, it is revealed that petitioner has challenged a tentative seniority list, without waiting for finalisation of the seniority list. Tentative seniority list is published for inviting objection from the persons likely to be affected and thereafter seniority list is finalised after considering objections. (5) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed objection given against a tentative seniority list, which was rejected, therefore, petitioner is justified in challenging the rejection order before the Tribunal. (6) We do not find substance in the said submission. Mere rejection of objection given against tentative seniority list does not give rise to a cause of action so as to maintain a claim petition. Petitioner should have waited for issuance of final seniority list, only then he could have approached the Tribunal. For this reason, we are not inclined to entertain the challenge thrown to the impugned judgment. Writ petition thus fails and is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 6.5.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3a eab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB58805 2DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.07 10:51:29 +05'30' 2025:UHC:3486-DB