2025:HHC:32439 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.223 of 2025 Decided on: 16.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Dr. Amit Gupta ...Appellant Versus Dr. Ashok Verma & Ors. ….Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellant: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: None for respondent No.1. Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.2 and 3-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal has been sought of the judgment dated 19.11.2024, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.2662 of 2023, tilted Dr. Ashok Verma Versus State of H.P. & Ors., whereby, the writ petition filed by the private respondent was allowed and order dated 03.05.2023 [Annexure P-10] was set aside. 2. Vide order, which was the subject matter of challenge, in the writ petition, as such, the appellant had been placed above the writ petitioner in the final seniority list dated 01.01.2015 of the Assistant 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:32439 - 2 - Professors [OBG] of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College & Hospital [Dr. RPGMC] Kangra at Tanda. 3. It is interesting to note that the authority while passing the said order did not even bother to issue any notice to the writ petitioner-private respondent herein and placed the present appellant at a senior level, even though it was noticed that the writ petitioner had been promoted on 23.05.2015 to the post of Associate Professor and further to the post of Professor on 30.12.2019 and the fact of his promotion was not objected to by the present appellant till 2020. 4. Learned Single Judge was rightly of the considered opinion that the present appellant and private respondent had been posted as Assistant Professors in the same Institution in the year 2009 and had been serving as Assistant Professors. The writ petitioner had been appointed on 30.07.2009, whereas, the present appellant was only appointed on 26.11.2009. The writ petitioner thereafter was promoted as Associate Professor on 23.05.2015 [Annexure P-5] and whereas, the present appellant was only promoted on 06.01.2020 after a period of five years [Annexure P-6]. The writ petitioner thereafter earned promotion to the post of Professor on 30.12.2019 [Annexure P-7] and the present appellant, 2025:HHC:32439 - 3 - apparently, was promoted as Professor on 06.09.2022 [Annexure P-8]. 5. The writ petitioner apparently had filed a representation dated 08.02.2021 [Annexure R-3/1], after more than a period of one year, wherein, he had claimed that his seniority being a promotee had not been considered while promoting the writ petitioner in May, 2015. Only on account of the fact that he had approached this Court and directions had been issued, as such, to decide his representation on 20.03.2023 in CWP No.96 of 2023, the order was passed by Secretary [Health] to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 03.05.2023 [Annexure P-10], as noticed, without even calling the writ petitioner and upsetting the seniority which had long been settled. 6. It is in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that both persons who were working in the same Institution and as such he could not hold out that he did not know that the writ petitioner had been appointed earlier, promoted earlier on two occasions, which orders were never subject matter of challenge at any point of time. The order of consideration to decide his representation was taken which has been frowned upon time and again by the Apex Court in 2025:HHC:32439 - 4 - Government of India and another Versus P. Venkatesh, (2019) 15 SCC 613, P. Venketash, wherein, it has been held that the representation mantra leads only to further litigation and amounts to extending the period of limitation or claim which had been lying dead. It is a classic case that having accepted the fact that the writ petitioner was far senior having been promoted as an Associate Professor five years earlier in point of time and said order had not been challenged at any point of time, we are unable to accept that the writ petitioner, as such, can now raise an argument that his seniority had been wrongly fixed. 7. It has also come on record that tentative seniority list dated 01.01.2015 was circulated and it is thereafter the promotion had been taken by both the employees as Associate Professors. It is in such circumstances that the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 03.05.2023 [Annexure P-10]. 8. The Apex Court way back in 1974 in P.S. Sadasivcaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 has held that the issue of promotion and seniority, as such, had to be contested at the earliest, preferably within six months and even one year’s 2025:HHC:32439 - 5 - grace can be granted. In the present case, as noticed, from 2015 till the 1st representation filed on 08.02.2021, a period of six years had elapsed and the present appellant had consented and accepted the fact that the writ petitioner was senior to him. Thus, the Secretary had upset the well-settled seniority in the Institute by placing the appellant at a position above the writ petitioner without even adhering to the basic principles and violating the principles of natural justice openly. 8(A). The Apex Court has examined the said principle of delay and laches in High Court of Judicature of Patna Versus Madan Mohan Prasad and others, (2011) 9 SCC 65. Similarly, in Vijay Kumar Kaul and others Versus Union of India and others, (2012) 7 SCC 610, the Apex Court has held that the claim for seniority is to be put-forth at the earliest and belated approach is impermissible and equity which may exist in favour of one melts into total insignificance and goes to the path of extinction. Similarly, in State of Uttaranchal and another Versus Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, (2013) 12 SCC 179, the stale claims were not held liable to be entertained by the Tribunal while noting the earlier decision in C. Jacob 2025:HHC:32439 - 6 - Versus Director of Geology and Mining, 1 (2008) 10 SCC 115, that consideration of representations, as such, would revive the stale and dead claims and resultantly, the orders passed by the Court below were set aside. 9. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the view which has been taken by the learned Single Judge, does not require any interference and the appellant had to agitate for his cause and fixation of his seniority at the earliest in the years 2015-2016 and thereafter having accepted the promotion of the writ petitioner, now cannot turn around and claim to be placed at a higher pedestal. Resultantly, there is no plausible reason to entertain the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 10. Reliance placed upon Ajay Kumar Shukla and others Versus Arvind Rai and others, (2022) 12 SCC 579 has also been noticed by the learned Single Judge that Rules had to be taken into consideration. As noticed, it is settled principle that the Rules will always, as such, govern seniority inter se the parties, but it is for the litigant who has to be aware of his rights and not the one who sleeps over the rights and, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances 2025:HHC:32439 - 7 - of the present case. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge September 16, 2025 [Bhardwaj]