2026:HHC:29440 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.552 of 2020 Decided on: 17.07.2026 Satish Kumar Negi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State. Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 5. Respondents No.6 to 9 ex-parte. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That communication dated 10.7.2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents may be directed to promote the applicant from the year 2000 with all consequential benefits. The respondents may also be directed to review seniority list of HPFS cadre issued from time to time and place the applicant 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:29440 in the seniority list over and above those persons who were promoted in the year 2000. The seniority of applicant may be counted by giving him the benefit of training.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Ranger on 01.07.1992. As per Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short ‘R&P Rules’) the minimum qualification for promotion to the post of Himachal Pradesh Forest Service (for short ‘HPFS’) is 7 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service in the feeder category of Forest Rangers. 75% of the posts has to be filled up by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of HPFS, after completion of 7 years of services i.e. in the year 1999, however, he was promoted to the post of HPFS on regular basis vide Notification dated 22.02.2003 (Annexure A-3). It has been averred that the petitioner had made a representation on 03.01.2008 to assign him seniority as per the implementation of Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001 to SC/ST Government servants on promotion by virtue of rule of reservation/roster. Thereafter, he again made a representation to respondent No.1 and the last representation made by him with respect to the final 3 2026:HHC:29440 seniority of HPFS Officers of H.P. Forest Department as it stood on 01.01.2007, came to be filed on 23.10.2013 (Annexure A-10), wherein a request was made to assign him seniority position so that he may get promotional avenue by way of induction in the IFS Cadre against promotional quota on the basis of his seniority position in the HPFS post by rule of reservation on the roster point basis. The said representation came to be rejected vide office order dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure A-11) by respondent No.1 holding that after issuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 13.09.2013 in I.A. No.6/2012 in SLP (Civil) No.30143/2009, the Department of Personnel vide letter No. PER(AP)-C-F(1)-2/2011-Vol.I dated 30.10.2013, has clarified that reservation in promotion to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories as per Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001 may not be granted. Keeping in view the said fact the petitioner has been placed at an appropriate position in the seniority list issued vide memorandum dated 05.11.2011, strictly in accordance with the instructions/guidelines of the State Government and as such the representation made by him came to be rejected. 4 2026:HHC:29440 3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure A-11) passed by respondent No.1 has approached this Court inter alia on the grounds that as per the memorandum and proceedings for promotion to the post of HPFS, three vacancies were available for Scheduled Tribe category (for short ‘ST’) in the year 2000 and the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short ‘DPC’) had considered the eligible Scheduled Tribe category candidates for the post in question. Once the petitioner was considered as Scheduled Tribe category candidate for the vacancies of the year 2000 and was recommended for promotion to the post of HPFS, he was entitled to get promotion in the year 2000 against the vacancy available in the year 2000. The respondents-State has given promotion to him as HPFS Officer w.e.f. 28.02.2003, though he was considered against the vacancy available in the year 2000. Therefore, he could not have been shown junior to those persons, who have been considered against vacancy available in the subsequent years. It has further been averred that the petitioner became member of the substantive cadre of HPFS, when the vacancy was available in the year 2000. It has also been 5 2026:HHC:29440 averred that his representation has been rejected in view of the instructions dated 27.05.1996, which is totally wrong and further respondents-State misrepresented the instructions and thus sought for quashing of order dated 10.07.2014 with a further direction to the respondents- State to promote him from the year 2000 with all consequential benefits. 4. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and not disputed the factum that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Ranger on 01.07.1992. It has not been disputed that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the rank of HPFS w.e.f. July, 1999, after completion of 7 years of service as Range Forest Officer, as per R&P Rules. It has been averred that Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 31.01.2003 recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of HPFS against the post reserved for ST category and accordingly he was promoted to the rank of HPFS on 22.02.2003. It has further been averred that on attaining the eligibility criteria of 7 years, the incumbents must also fall in the zone of consideration for promotion. Prior to 2003, the petitioner did not fall in the zone of consideration and, therefore, was 6 2026:HHC:29440 not considered for promotion prior to the year 2003. Hence, he has rightly been promoted on 22.02.2003 after following the reservation roster against the post reserved for ST and has rightly been placed in the seniority list. It has further been averred that after considering the objections/representations of HPFS Officers and examining them in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Law, final seniority list of HPFS as it stood on 01.01.2007 was issued by the Government vide memorandum dated 05.11.2011. The grievance of the petitioner regarding his seniority was also examined by the Government and as per opinion of the Department of Personnel and Law, he was placed at appropriate position in the seniority list i.e. at Seniority No.114 issued vide memorandum dated 05.11.2011. As per final seniority list as it stood on 01.01.2007, the petitioner appears at Serial No.154 (Seniority No.114), which is correct as per his placement. The persons, who have been promoted after the petitioner were senior to him in the feeder cadre to HPFS and after promotion, attained their own place in seniority and were placed above the petitioner. The representation made by the petitioner had no substance, which has been decided 7 2026:HHC:29440 correctly. The petitioner has been promoted as HPFS against the post reserved for ST category as per recommendation of the DPC dated 31.01.2003. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents-State and controverted the averments made therein. 6. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents-State and Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 5 and also gone through the record carefully. 7. The petitioner has placed on record copy of memorandum for consideration of the DPC meeting for promotion of eligible Forest Rangers to the post of HPFS as Annexure A-12, as well as the Minutes of Meeting of the DPC convened on 31.01.2003 (Annexure A-12(A). A perusal of the proceedings of DPC reveals that for the year 2000, there were 16 posts for General category to be filled up by promotion on the basis of the selection on merit, out of which 3 posts were reserved for ST category and 5 for SC category. The name of the petitioner figures in the extended 8 2026:HHC:29440 zone of ST category for the year 2000. As per the recommendations for the post of HPFS, the name of the petitioner figures at Serial No.16, from which it is clear that the petitioner ought to have been promoted to the post of HPFS for the vacancy of 2000, but the respondents-State issued the Notification dated 22.02.2003 (Annexure A-3) to promote him to the post of HPFS on regular basis in the year 2003, but did not adjust him for the vacancy of the year 2000. 8. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the Notification dated 22.02.2003, whereby he was not adjusted against the vacancy of the year 2000, ought to have been approached the Court at that time. However, he did not come to the Court for redressal of his grievances and started making representations to the authorities that as per the DPC held on 02.05.1996 for promotion of Forest Rangers to the Rank of ACFs, undue advantage was given to some of the officials of general category, whereas the officials of the SC and ST categories were falsely quoted as unavailable and their rights have been snatched. Thereafter, when the tentative seniority of HPFS as it stood on 01.01.2007 was issued against which he made the 9 2026:HHC:29440 representation. However, the respondents-State issued a final seniority list vide memorandum dated 05.11.2011, as it stood on 01.01.2007, but the petitioner did not immediately raise the issue and made the representation only on 23.10.2013 (Annexure A-8), which came to be rejected on 10.07.2014 (Annexure A-11). 9. Though the respondents-State has not taken the plea of limitation, but the Court cannot ignore the same and is under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. In the present case, the petitioner had filed the original application before the Tribunal after more than 13 years of passing the order of promotion on 22.02.2003 seeking promotion from the year 2000, which has now been registered as present petition. No doubt, there is no limitation prescribed to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the Court has to be satisfied before exercising its extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. The petitioner has not furnished any explanation in the petition that why did he not approach the Court/Tribunal well within time and thus, at this stage, the Court is refraining itself to exercise its extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction to entertain the 10 2026:HHC:29440 petition which is barred by delay and laches. 10. Learned Deputy Advocate General to buttress his submissions that the petition deserves to be dismissed on delay and laches placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. Since there is no explanation in the petition, the same is hit by the principle of delay and laches. 11. The petitioner once did not challenge the Notification dated 22.02.2003 (Annexure A-3), at the time when he was promoted to the post of HPFS on regular basis, without being assigned against the vacancy of the year 2000 which he is claiming in the present petition, at this belated stage, cannot be granted. No doubt injustice has been done to the petitioner for the reason that the DPC had considered his candidature for the vacancy of 2000, as evident from the perusal of DPC convened on 31.01.2003 and the vacancy was available, but since he did not agitate the matter within some reasonable time, no relief can be granted at this belated stage. Not only this, even when the 11 2026:HHC:29440 final seniority list was issued, as per memorandum dated 05.11.2011, he did not approach the Court regarding his final seniority position as it stood on 01.01.2007 and made the representation for the first time on 23.10.2013, which came to be rejected vide order dated 10.07.2014. The order dated 10.07.2014 passed by respondent No.1 has taken note of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 30.10.2013 had clarified that reservation in promotion to the members of SC and ST categories cannot be granted and thus no illegality can be found with the said order passed by respondent No.1. Not only this, even after passing the order on 10.07.2014, the petitioner did not come to the Court immediately and instituted the original application before the Tribunal on 04.11.2016, i.e. after more than two years of rejection of his representation. As already observed above, no doubt the respondents while filing the reply have not raised the plea of limitation, but the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner firstly, did not assail the Notification dated 22.02.2003, when he was promoted to the post of HPFS, where he was not assigned the vacancy for the year 2000; secondly, when the final seniority list was issued on 05.11.2011, he did not 12 2026:HHC:29440 come to the Court; and thirdly, when order on the representation was made on 10.07.2014, he approached the Tribunal on 04.11.2016 i.e. after more than two years of rejection of his claim. At every stage, the petitioner has taken the matter very casually and leisurely. Once the petitioner was not serious about his rights, the Court cannot come to his aid to grant him any relief, especially when he did not raise the same well within time. The petition instituted by the petitioner is hit by the principle of delay and laches and as such dismissed on this sole ground. 12. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 17 th July , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge