( 2026:HHC:27973 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.1010 2019 a/w CWPOA No. 5804 of 2019 Decided on: 08.07.2026 1. CWPOA No. 1010 of 2019 Liaq Ram Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents 2. CWPOA No. 5804 of 2019 Liaq Ram Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________ For the petitioner(s): Mr. P.P. Chauhan and Ms. Shikha Rajta, Advocates in both petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) Since common question of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:27973 ) 2 2. For the purpose of deciding the controversy, the facts of CWPOA No.5804 of 2019, are taken up. 3. The petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 15.11.2014 (Annexure A-8), whereby his representation for promotion to the post of Clerk has been rejected. Thereafter, vide office order dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure A-9), the corrigendum dated 26.07.2014 and addendum dated 15.10.2014, whereby the seniority was assigned to the petitioner, has been withdrawn. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the office order dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure A-5/A), whereby the persons junior to him, have been promoted to the posts of Clerk with all consequential benefits. 4. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wage basis and thereafter his services were regularized as such w.e.f. 01.01.1997. As per seniority list circulated by the respondents-Department, as it stood on 31.12.2006, he was not placed appropriately in the seniority list and thus he made a request to correct his seniority position, which request came to be accepted, vide office order dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure A-1) and the petitioner was assigned the appropriate seniority, as on 31.12.2013. After assignment of seniority position, the petitioner made a representation to grant him ( 2026:HHC:27973 ) 3 consequential benefits, such as promotion, which came to be rejected vide office order dated 15.11.2014 (Annexure A-8) stating that as on date vacancy is not available and thus his case will be considered on the availability of vacancy in this quota as and when available. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had passed an office order on 03.09.2015 (Annexure A-9) withdrawing the corrigendum dated 26.07.2014 and addendum dated 15.10.2014, whereby the seniority was assigned to the petitioner. It has been noticed in the order that while preparing reply to the petition instituted by the petitioner seeking his promotion on the basis of seniority assigned to him, as per addendum dated 15.10.2014and aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2014 (Annexure A-8) (wrongly mentioned as 15.07.2015 in CWPOA No.1010 of 2019), it was found that he has been assigned seniority wrong and thus he was summoned for hearing on 17.08.2015 and hearing took place on 18.08.2015. However, respondent No.2 was elevated as Advisor as such, the petitioner as well as the Registrar of the Department were heard on 27.08.2015. It has been noticed that while issuing corrigendum/addendum, there was nothing on record to show that any decision has been taken on the file with recorded reasons with provision of Rules firstly to issue corrigendum dated 26.07.2014 and then addendum dated 15.10.2014. It was also recorded in the order that there are no ( 2026:HHC:27973 ) 4 reasons to entertain any representation after the finalization of the seniority, which was always considered only in clerical and typing error especially when proper opportunities were given while circulating the tentative seniority list, as such, there was no occasion to entertain the application for correction and issue orders thereon. Thus, the corrigendum dated 26.07.2014 and addendum dated 15.10.2014 passed in a haste without any provision of rules and without any decision on file, were withdrawn. It was further recorded in the order that basis of assigning seniority to various Cass-IV officials of the Department, who are matriculate and regular Class-IV, the seniority was circulated from time to time and no person from work charge and work charged converted into regular are considered for seniority for the purpose of promotion to the post of Clerk. The seniority list circulated earlier shows that only regular Class-IV employees are included, since the very beginning in the seniority circulated from time to time for the purpose of promotion to the post of Clerk. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his claim as well as withdrawing the seniority as per addendum dated 15.10.2014, has laid challenge to the same inter-alia on the grounds that once the respondent-Department had rectified the mistake, which had earlier committed by them while issuing the seniority list ( 2026:HHC:27973 ) 5 as it stood on 31.12.2006, the same could not have been rectified without hearing and without issuing show cause notice and thus, the action on the part of the respondents is averred to be against the principles of natural justice. It has further been averred that the respondents instead of complying with the order of the Court had passed the order dated 03.09.2015, vide which, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Class-IV officials of the Department who were matriculate and only regular Class-IV employees, the seniority was circulated from time to time only in respect of those Class-IV employees. The action on the part of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner to the post of Clerk is pleaded to be wrong, illegal, unjust and against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been denied the exact seniority in the cadre of Class-IV employees, whereas he was to be assigned seniority in the cadre of Class-IV employees w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and thus he has fundamental right of consideration for promotion. After correcting the seniority position, the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Clerk against 10% quota prior to his juniors. The petitioner was assigned the correct seniority and by not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion from due date, the respondents have not only violated the rights of the petitioner, but have also acted in an unauthorized ( 2026:HHC:27973 ) 6 and illegal manner. The petitioner is entitled for getting his promotion as Clerk w.e.f. 02.09.2008, when his juniors were promoted as Clerk and thus prayed for quashing the aforesaid orders. 6. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the final seniority list of Class-IV employees with matric and higher education for the purpose of promotion to the post of Clerk was circulated from time to time showing his seniority as on 31.12.2006, vide letter dated 14.09.2007, wherein the petitioner was assigned seniority at Serial No.38. Thereafter, in the last seniority list dated 31.12.2013, he figured at Serial No.34. This seniority list was circulated first as tentative inviting objections and subsequently finalized. The petitioner never made any representation against this. However, he for the first time represented against the final seniority list of 31.12.2013, that too after its finalization. Therefore, the request for change in the seniority after its finalization was not maintainable under Rules, especially against the seniority list of 2006. Hence, the corrigendum and addendum could not have been issued and as such were rightly withdrawn by a speaking order, after hearing the petitioner. The request of the petitioner was initially for correction in the seniority as on 31.12.2013 and the representation made by him for correction ( 2026:HHC:27973 ) 7 in the seniority list of 31.12.2006, which was inadvertently entertained. After scrutinizing the record, an error was found and thereafter, the petitioner as well as Registrar of the respondent- Department, were heard. It was found that the basis of assigning seniority to various Class-IV officials of the Department, who are matriculate and were only regular Class-IV employees and the seniority was circulated from time to time only for those Class-IV employees, who are regular and no person from work charge or work charge converted into regular are included in the seniority for the purpose of promotion to the post of Clerk. It has further been averred that no reason was recorded while issuing corrigendum/addendum dated 26.07.2014 and 15.10.2014. There was no occasion to entertain the application for correction and issue order of correction that too after more than 7 years, especially when it has resulted into adverse impact on promotions made during the year 2008 and will create such an anomalous situation. The corrigendum and addendum were passed in a haste manner and contrary to the provisions of rules as such were rightly withdrawn. The petitioner made a request for change in the final seniority list vide letter dated 21.07.2014 (Annexure A-3), which was wrongly and inadvertently considered by the Department. ( 2026:HHC:27973 ) 8 7. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and converted the averments made in the reply. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 9. The petitioner has not placed on record any material to show that he had ever made objections with respect to his seniority list as on 31.12.2006, which was circulated vide letter dated 14.09.2007, wherein he was assigned the seniority at serial No.38.Thereafter, in the last seniority list as on 31.12.2013, he figured at serial No.34. For the first time, the petitioner raised objection on 21.07.2014 (Annexure A-3), regarding his position in the seniority list, in which his name had figured at Serial No.34. There is no averment in the petition that when the promotions were made on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short DPC) held on 30.08.2008vide office order dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure A-5/A)to promote Class-IV employees to the post of Class-III Clerk, the petitioner had ever raked up the issue against the promotions. It is true that the respondents on the basis of representation made by the petitioner on 21.07.2014 had issued corrigendum dated 26.07.2014 and thereafter addendum was issued on 15.10.2014, when the petitioner was assigned the seniority considering his appointment on regular basis w.e.f. 01.01.1997, but ( 2026:HHC:27973 ) 9 that was issued in a haste manner, without considering the objections and once respondent No.2 has come to the conclusion that the petitioner did not assail the earlier seniority list and thereafter the petitioner has been heard when he was summoned before issuing the order dated 03.09.2015, no illegality can be said to have been committed by respondent No.2 while rectifying the mistake. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that before altering his seniority position, the least which was expected of respondent No.2, was to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and only thereafter the corrigendum/addendum could have been withdrawn. This Court does not agree with the said submission for the simple reason that before passing the order on 03.09.2015, the petitioner was heard, which finds mention in the order, not once, but firstly on 18.08.2015 and thereafter another opportunity was granted to him to appear on 27.08.2015 and only thereafter the order was passed. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not been heard before passing the order dated 03.09.2015 is wrong and without any basis. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State ( 2026:HHC:27973 ) 10 of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others, AIR 1967 SC 1269 to contend that respondent No.2 was required to show cause as to why the seniority position assigned to the petitioner be not altered and since the petitioner has not been heard, the impugned order on this short ground deserves to be quashed. However, the mandate of law in the aforesaid judgment is not attracted to the present case for the reason that in that case, the person was not heard before passing the order. However, in the present case, as already observed above, the petitioner has been heard and, therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is not attracted to the facts of the present case. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since respondent No.2 had rectified the seniority position and consequent thereto, the petitioner would have been promoted from the date when his juniors were promoted i.e. in the year 2008, the limitation will not come in his way to quash the said order dated 02.09.2008, more particularly, when the petitioner was staking his claim for promotion against the enhancement of promotion quota from 10% from Class-IV employees. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kuldip Chand vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 5 SCC 680. I have gone through the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ( 2026:HHC:27973 ) 11 the law laid down in the said judgment is to the effect that since no vacancy had arisen after preparing the seniority list, mere rejection of the representation, would not disentitled a person to file the petition to claim seniority over the superseding candidate for consideration by the employer. The ratio laid down in the said judgment is not attracted for the reason that in the present case, the petitioner has not impleaded the persons, who could have been affected in case his petition is allowed and he is promoted, taking his seniority position, which was rectified on 15.10.2014. As already mentioned above, since the said seniority position is not in place, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, especially in the absence of the persons who are going to be affected, if any order is passed in favour of the petitioner. 13. Consequently, I do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 8th July, 2026 Judge (naveen)