IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3333 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gurcharan Singh and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners is that objections having been filed by the petitioners to the tentative seniority list are not being decided for long and as such, necessary direction be issued to the respondents to do the needful in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners, shall be decided expeditiously. - 2 - 3. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith, this court finds that petitioner herein made a representation dated 1.2.2025 raising therein objections with regard to tentative seniority list, but till date, same has not been decided. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation/objections (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge