( 2025:HHC:18191 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9574/2025 Decided on: 16.06.2025 Surender Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ......Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. N.K. Tomar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J The case pleaded by the petitioner is as under: - (i) Petitioner was initially appointed as Chowkidar on temporary basis in the respondent-Forest Department (respondents No.1, 3 & 4) on 25.09.2007 (Annexure P-1 page-16 of the paper book). The said appointment was under Handicapped Quota. Petitioner alleges that though he was appointed as Chowkidar on 25.09.2007 but the respondents-Forest Department had always extracted the work of Clerk from him. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:18191 (ii) A meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 10.08.2011 in the Forest Department, pursuant to which, petitioner’s services were confirmed as Chowkidar vide office order of even date (page 21 of the paper book). (iii) The petitioner preferred Original Application No.1922/2015 before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal seeking direction to the respondent-Forest Department to consider his representation for promoting him as Clerk. The said application was disposed of with direction to the respondent-Forest Department to decide petitioner’s representation. The respondent-Forest Department rejected his representation on 21.10.2015. The petitioner has assailed the said rejection by instituting another Original Application No.4528/2016 re- numbered as CWPOA No. 285/2020, stated to be pending adjudication. (iv) Petitioner participated in a selection process undertaken by the respondent-Education Department (respondents No.2, 5 & 6) through Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (HPSSC) for recruitment to the post of Clerks through 20% Limited Direct Recruitment, wherein he emerged successful. The respondent- Education Department offered him an appointment under office order dated 02.11.2018 (page 26-28 of the paper book). Petitioner accepted the offer, consequently he was relieved by the Forest Department as 3 ( 2025:HHC:18191 Chowkidar on 05.11.2018. Petitioner thereafter discharged his duties as Clerk in the respondent Education Department. 2. In the above pleaded factual background, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking following relief:- “That the petitioner be granted seniority from the time when petitioner was discharging duties of clerk in the respondent Forest Department i.e respondents No.1, 3 & 4, i.e since 26/08/2008 and abovesaid seniority of forest department may be counted for promotion and consequential service benefit of seniority, promotion and financial benefits in Department of Higher Education respondents Nos. 2, 5 and 6, and for the purpose of all other consequential services benefits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the case file. 4. Petitioner seeks seniority from the time, when he was allegedly discharging the duties as Clerk in the respondent-Forest Department i.e. w.e.f. 26.05.2008 (since 25.09.2007) till his direct recruitment as Clerk in the respondent-Education Department on 02.11.2018. He also seeks direction to the respondent-Education Department to give effect to the seniority sought by him as Clerk in the Forest Department for the purpose of promotion and consequential service benefits including financial ones in the respondent-Education Department. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed as Clerk in the Forest Department. His initial appointment in the Forest 4 ( 2025:HHC:18191 Department on 25.09.2007 was on temporary basis as Chowkidar. Services of the petitioner as Chowkidar were confirmed on 10.08.2011. There is no document on record of this petition even to suggest that the petitioner ever served as Clerk in the respondent-Forest Department pursuant to his appointment as Chowkidar w.e.f. 25.09.2007. Be that as it may. It is the case of the petitioner as canvassed by learned counsel that the petitioner has preferred CWPOA No. 285/2020 for getting the benefit of service allegedly rendered by him as Clerk subsequent to his appointment as Chowkidar. As per the pleaded case, the petitioner had participated in a separate selection process undertaken by the HPSSC in the year 2018 for filling up the posts of Clerk through direct recruitment in the respondent-Education Department. On remaining successful in the said process, petitioner was offered appointment as Clerk on regular basis on and w.e.f. 02.11.2018 under the office order of even date. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner’s services as Clerk in the Forest Department are liable to be counted for the purpose of seniority and service benefits in the Education Department. This contention is not supported with any justification whatsoever. It is fine to seek a relief but there has to be a foundation in the pleadings for seeking the relief. No such foundation exists in the petition. Simply asserting that the petitioner had rendered service as Clerk in the 5 ( 2025:HHC:18191 Forest department prior to his selection in the Education Department as Clerk, will not advance the case of the petitioner. More so, when petitioner had been appointed as Clerk in the respondent-Education Department under an altogether different selection process undertaken for filling in the posts through direct recruitment under the aegis of HPSSC. Petitioner had accepted the aforesaid appointment in the year 2018 and now after about 7 years, he seeks to count previous service allegedly rendered by him as Clerk in the Forest Department for the purpose of seniority in the Education Department with no contemporary record to bank upon. Additionally, the previous service rendered by the petitioner in the Forest Department was in the capacity as a Chowkidar and not as Clerk. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in petitioner’s claim, which is not even substantiated by the petitioner by any evidence/record whatsoever. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge June 16, 2025 (rohit)