( 2026:HHC:39801 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16160/2026 Decided on: 16.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zakir Hussain & Ors. …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 & 2, which is waived by Mr. Rajat Choudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General. In view of grievance of the petitioner raised herein, the impugned decision of the respondents, and the nature of the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply from the appearing respondents. Notice is also not required to be issued to respondents No. 3 to 46. The matter has, accordingly, been heard at this stage. 2. Tentative seniority list of Agriculture Extension Officers as on 01.03.2026 was circulated by the respondents on 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-6). 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:39801 The respondents invited objections from the aggrieved incumbents against the aforesaid tentative seniority list. The petitioners filed their objections/representations against the aforesaid tentative seniority list. The respondents, vide office letter dated 21.07.2026, rejected all the objections, in one stroke, stating that “seniority assigned to them is correct as per directions issued by H.P. Government Department from time to time”. The relevant portion of the order is as under:- “…However, the seniority list has been prepared as per the directions issued by the Per. Deptt. Vide letter No. 1-9/73- DP (APPTT-II) dated 07.10.1986. As such (on merit basis) the seniority assigned to them is correct as per directions issued by the Per. Deptt. from time to time. Further, the case is being subjudice before the Hon'ble High regarding seniority list of AEOs and Act No. 23 of 2025 has also been nullified by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 3361/2025- Devinder Kumar Vs State of HP alongwith connected matters. In view of above, your representation was considered & rejected in term of facts mentioned above.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has apprised the Court that, after rejection of petitioners’ representations, the final seniority list of Agriculture Extension Officers has not yet been issued. 4. The petitioners, in their representations, have taken several grounds for objecting to the tentative seniority list of Agriculture Extension Officers. The said grounds have not been dealt with by respondent No. 2/competent authority while rejecting 3 ( 2026:HHC:39801 the representations. The representations have been rejected mechanically, and summarily. The grounds raised, therein have not been examined at all by respondent No. 2. The objections have been dismissed under a generalized order that does not even discuss the objections. Seniority list, once finalized confers right upon the employee to seek promotion and other service benefits based upon his seniority position. Before finalizing the seniority list, notice is issued to all concerned in form of tentative seniority list inviting objections thereto within fixed time schedule. The objections, so received from aggrieved persons are to be decided in accordance with law. The very object of inviting objections to the tentative seniority list would be defeated if the objections are not considered in accordance with law and are rejected in the manner adopted by respondent No. 2. In Kranti Associates Private Limited and another versus Masood Ahmed Khan and others2 Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that reasons are to be recorded, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. Relevant para of the decision reads as under:- “47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a). In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. 2 (2010) 9 SCC 496 decided on 08.09.2010 4 ( 2026:HHC:39801 (b). A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c). Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d). Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e). Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f). Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g). Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h). The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i). Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j). Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k). If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l). Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubberstamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. 5 ( 2026:HHC:39801 (m). It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor.) (n). Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Rioz Tproka v/ Saom EJRR. At 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o). In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". In view of above, respondents’ decision rejecting the representations of the petitioners vide office letter dated 21.07.2026 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the objections raised by the petitioners against the tentative seniority list of Agriculture Extension Officers, as it stood on 01.03.2026 and circulated on 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-6), in accordance with law and keeping in view above observations. Fresh decision be taken within a period of four weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Till such decision is taken, no action shall be taken by the respondents on the basis of the aforesaid tentative seniority list. 6 ( 2026:HHC:39801 The writ petition to stand disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 16th September, 2026 Judge rohit