IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CWP-19768-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.03.2025 Ram Kumar Dhiman ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- None for the petitioner(s). Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG Haryana. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge in the present petition is to the letter/order dated 25.09.2017 passed by respondent No.3 viz. Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Haryana, in compliance to the order dated 20.01.2017 passed by this Court in CWP-14996-1994 titled as ‘Rameshwar Khasa and others Vs. State of Haryana and others’. 2. Vide impugned letter/order dated 25.09.2017, a draft tentative seniority list had been circulated by the respondents. The petitioner has approached this Court averring that the said draft tentative seniority list has disrupted his seniority after 5 years without affording any opportunity of hearing. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner(s). 4. Learned State counsel, however, contends that the challenge has been raised in the present petition to the draft tentative seniority list whereas MANGAL SINGH 2025.04.01 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 211 CWP-19768-2018 (O&M) the said seniority list has thereafter been finalised and the final seniority list had also been circulated vide letter dated 27.12.2018, wherein the petitioner has been shown at Sr. No.158. He contends that the petitioner was required to raise a challenge to the final seniority list. 5. In response to the contention that the petitioner was not a party in CWP-14996-1994 and was not afforded any opportunity of hearing, it is submitted that the said contentions are factually incorrect in as much as not only the petitioner was a party in the said writ petition as respondent No.3 but he was also represented on certain dates by an Advocate engaged by him, who incidentally happens to be his counsel in the instant writ petition. 6. Be that as it may, since the seniority list has already been finalized, hence, the challenge based solely on the tentative seniority is not maintainable. It is also noticed by this Court that no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the petitioner even on the last date of hearing. 7. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of at this stage as having been rendered infructuous. 8. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to raise a challenge to finalized seniority list, if so advised, in a manner known to law. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 27.03.2025 JUDGE Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANGAL SINGH 2025.04.01 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document