2026:HHC:16072 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1554 of 2019 Decided on: 12.05.2026 Dr. Rajesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Prem Prakash Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. to issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned orders contained in being Annexure P-2, P-7, P-12, P-23 and P-25 of the writ petition, as unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the law; b. to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to review seniority list and rank the petitioner senior to the private respondent with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary alongwith interest thereon @ 18% pa; c. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof to give full justice to the petitioners in the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16072 circumstances of the case and may pass such further writ, order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, just and expedient in the circumstances of the case; and d. to award the costs of this writ petition to the petitioner.” 2. In terms of the relief clauses, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of Annexure P-2, P-7, P-12, P-23 and P-25. Annexure P-2 is Notification dated 13.08.1998, in terms whereof, the private respondent alongwith one Bharat Raj, who was serving as a Scientific Officer in the State Forensic Science Laboratory. was promoted on an adhoc basis against the post of Assistant Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory in relaxation of the provisions of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Annexure P-7 is the Tentative Seniority List of the Assistant Directors in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, dated 22.11.2002, as it stood on 31.10.2002. Annexure P-12 is the information provided to the petitioner under Right to Information Act by PIO-cum-Under Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2011, in terms whereof, the petitioner was informed that the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee relating to the promotion of the private respondent from the post of Assistant Director to Deputy Director (Range FSL) were not traceable for the moment as the file in which the matter was dealt with was tagged with the files of the Department and sincere effort was being made to locate the same. Annexure P-23 is the Final seniority List of Deputy Directors of SFSL 3 2026:HHC:16072 Junka and RFSL, dated 26.06.2013. Annexure P-25 is again information supplied to the petitioner under Right to Information Act by Public Information Officer, State Forensic Science Laboratory, dated 23.08.2013, alongwith which Notification dated 03.09.2012 is appended, in terms whereof, the private respondent who was serving as Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Dharamsala was called upon to hold the additional charge of the post of Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. 3. In the backdrop of the documents referred to hereinabove, I will proceed to put-forth the facts of the case. In terms of the averments made in the written petition, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Director vide Annexure P-4, dated 03.02.2000, in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, on the recommendation of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. According to the petitioner, private Respondent, namely, Dr. Arun Sharma was recruited as a Scientific Officer on 30.08.1991, on the recommendation of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. On 13.08.1998, he was promoted as Assistant Director in violation to the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, on adhoc basis against the post of Assistant Director on 13.08.1998, vide Annexure P-2. The private respondent was, thereafter, promoted against the post of Assistant Director on regular basis on 17.08.2000, vide Annexure P-5, on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee. According to the petitioner, in 4 2026:HHC:16072 this order of regular promotion, there was no mention of the past service rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis against the post, which meant that the adhoc promotion of the petitioner was not regularized. It is further the contention of the petitioner that a Tentative Seniority List of Assistant Directors was issued by the Department on 22.11.2002, in which the private respondent was placed above the petitioner. A Final Seniority List was also issued vide Annexure P-8, on 02.06.2003, after rejecting the representation of two Officers in this regard. It is further the contention of the petitioner that two posts of Deputy Director (Range Labs) were created in the year 2007. One of the posts was to be filled-in by way of direct recruitment and the other by way of promotion. According to the petitioner, before the process of direct recruitment could be commenced, a Departmental Promotion Committee was convened in the year 2008 and the private respondent was promoted against the post of Deputy Director (Range Labs.) in August, 2008. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the year 2008, Public Service Commission also commenced the process of filling-up the other post of Deputy Director (Range Labs.) by way of direct recruitment. The petitioner participated in the said process and was recommended by the Commission for appointment as Deputy Director. The petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Director on 13.01.2011, vide Annexure P-17 by way of direct recruitment. According to the petitioner, the abovementioned facts demonstrate that the private respondent was 5 2026:HHC:16072 wrongly placed as an Assistant Director in the year 2003 and thereafter, was wrongly promoted as Deputy Director (Range Labs.) in the year 2008. According to the petitioner, he was victimized right from the beginning and he being senior most Assistant Director should have been promoted in the year 2008 instead of the private respondent. Further, according to the petitioner, he approached the Authorities, highlighting the said illegalities but as nothing transpired, hence this petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the private respondent was subjected to favoritism from day one, which has jeopardized the rights of the petitioner. He submitted that after the initial induction of the private respondent in the Department, he was conferred adhoc promotion against the post of Assistant Director by relaxing the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, which could not have been done. He further submitted that thereafter, the private respondent was promoted on regular basis against the post in issue to the detriment of the petitioner. He also submitted that the private respondent was illegally promoted against the post of Deputy Director (Range Labs.) again jeopardizing the rights of the petitioner. He submitted that as all these acts were demonstrative of the fact that the private respondent was favored by the Department and the petitioner was discriminated, therefore, the petition be allowed, as prayed for. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General 6 2026:HHC:16072 as well as learned Counsel for the other respondents including the private respondent vehemently argued that the present petition was hit by gross delays and latches and on merit, also was not sustainable. They argued that the private respondent was appointed by way of direct recruitment against the post of Scientific Officer in the year 1991, when the petitioner was not even born in the Cadre of the Department. They further submitted that adhoc promotion was conferred upon the private respondent alongwith one other Officer on 30.04.1997, by relaxing the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, which power was vested in the Authority concerned. They further argued that the petitioner was appointed in the Department vide Annexure P-4, as an Assistant Director. They submitted that on the other hand, the private respondent was promoted on regular basis against the post of Assistant Director on 17.08.2000. The private respondent preferred CWP(T) No. 5708 of 2008, titled Dr. Arun Sharma & another Versus State of H.P. & Others, in terms thereof, he prayed that he be declared to be Assistant Director with effect from the date of their joining the Lab as Scientific Officer or in the alternative, he be declared to have been promoted as Assistant Director on regular basis on the day when he was promoted on adhoc basis. This Petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in terms of Annexure P-15, on 18.10.2010 and the matter regarding counting of adhoc services as Assistant Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory by the private 7 2026:HHC:16072 respondent was taken up with the Advisory Department of Law and Personnel, including the Department of Training and Foreign Assignment and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and needful was done. They further contended that these acts which took place in the years 1998, 2000, 2007 and 2008 were never assailed by the petitioner and he has belatedly filed this petition. Accordingly, they prayed that there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith. 7. At the very outset, I have quoted the orders, quashing of of which has been prayed for by the petitioner. The first Annexure, quashing of which has been prayed is Annexure P-2. Annexure P-2, is the order, in terms whereof, the private respondent was promoted on adhoc basis against the post of Assistant Director vide Notification dated 13.08.1998. Now, when this adhoc promotion was conferred upon the private respondent, the petitioner was not even born in the Cadre and obviously he was not having any locus to assail this same. Even after he joined the Department in the year 2000, he did not assail the same till the filing of the petition and in this light of the fact, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is precluded from assailing this Notification both on the ground of locus as well as delays and latches. 8 2026:HHC:16072 8. Thereafter, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of Annexure P-7. Annexure P-7, again is the Tentative Seniority List of the Assistant Directors issued by the Department as it stood on 31.10.2002. This Court is of the considered view that it is not the Tentative Seniority List which is to be assailed by an incumbent, but it is the Final Seniority List which can be assailed by the employee. When a Tentative Seniority List is circulated, the aggrieved employee can always file representation against the same and in the present case, the Tentative Seniority List which is assailed, i.e. Annexure P-7, culminated into the Final Seniority List of Assistant Directors, Annexure P-8, dated 02.06.2003 and incidentally, the Final Seniority list of Assistant Directors was not assailed by the petitioner when the same was circulated nor the same has been assailed by the petitioner by way of this petition. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek the quashing of Annexure P-7 for reasons assigned hereinabove. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of Annexure P-12, which is nothing but information supplied to the petitioner under Right to Information Act, dated 21.12.2011, by the PIO-cum-Under Secretary (Home). This Court is of the considered view that in case the petitioner was aggrieved by Anexure P-12, then the petitioner should have assailed the same under the provision of the Right to Information Act, but the same cannot be allowed to be assailed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9 2026:HHC:16072 10. Thereafter, the petitioner has assailed Annexure P-23, which is the Final Seniority List of Deputy Director, FSL, as issued on 26.06.2013. Now incidentally, it is a matter of record that the private respondent was promoted against the post of Deputy Director in the month of August, 2008, as averred in the writ petition, whereas the petitioner was recruited against the said post by way of direct recruitment vide Annexure P-17, dated 13.01.2011. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner challenged the promotion of the private respondent against the post of Deputy Director (Range Labs.), when the said promotion order was issued in the year 2008. In fact, even in the present writ petition there is no specific challenge to the promotion order of the private respondent against the post of Deputy Director (Range Labs.) 11. Thus, in the absence of any challenge to the promotion order, obviously the petitioner has no locus to assail the Final Seniority List of Deputy Directors, which is based on the promotion order as in the absence of there being any challenge to the order which is the foundation of the Final Seniority List, the petitioner cannot be allowed to assail the Final Seniority List. This is more so for the reason that it is not the case of the petitioner that in the Final Seniority List the private respondent has not been given seniority in terms of his promotion against the post in issue. 12. Finally, the petitioner has challenged Annexure P-25, which is the order passed by the Authority, dated 03.09.2012, in 10 2026:HHC:16072 terms whereof, the private respondent was called upon to hold the additional charge of the post of Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory in addition to his own duties. Obviously, as this charge was given by the Higher Authority to the private respondent on the basis of his seniority in the Department, this Court finds no infirmity therein. 13. Accordingly, in light of findings returned hereinabove, as the petition is belated and without merit and in the absence of there being any challenge to the relevant promotions which were conferred upon the private respondent by the Authorities against the posts in issue, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 12, 2026 (Rishi)