IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 17248 of 2026. Decided on : 30 th September , 2026 Dalip Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Heard and considered the case file. 2. Petitioners seek quashing of Clause 7(iii) of Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure P-9). Clause 7(iii) of Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2021 reads as under:- “7. Based on the above, it has been decided to modify the instructions relating to determination of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits as under:- (i)…………………………. (ii)……………………….. (iii) In case of direct recruits and promotees appointed/joined during the period between 27.11.2012 and 18.11.2019 and in which case inter se seniority could not be finalized by 18.11.2019, shall also be governed by the provisions of O.Ms. Dated 7.2.1986/3.7.1986 read with OM dated 4.3.2014 unless where a different formulation/manner of determination of seniority has been decided by any Tribunal or Court.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The aforesaid clause is part of the Office Memorandum that contains revised instructions relating to drawing the inter se seniority of of direct recruits and promotees and was issued pursuant to K. Meghachandra Singh and others vs. Ningam Siro and Ors.2. Validity of Clause 7(iii) of Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2021 was questioned and has been upheld in Er. Rattan Jeet and others versus H.P. State Electricity Board Limited and others3. Operation of the said judgment has not been stayed in LPA Nos. 519 and 520 of 2026 filed against it, though the appeals have been admitted on 16.09.2026. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argues that fact situation of the instant petition is different from that of Ratan Jeet and others3, therefore, validity of Clause 7(iii) of the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2021 is required to be independently examined in light of challenge made in this petition that is based upon the facts of this case. However, to a query of the Court, it was admitted by the learned Senior Counsel that there is no inter-se seniority list of Tehsildars (the post in question) in place as of now, be it tentative or final depicting the position of petitioners. That being the admitted factual position, the case of the petitioners pertaining to Clause 7(iii), which contains instructions relating 2(2020)5 SCC 689 3 CWP No.262 of 2022 decided along with CWP No. 5879 of 2022 on 14.08.2026. 3 to determining inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees cannot be considered at this stage. Cause of action, as projected by the petitioners, has not yet accrued to them. Petitioners' grievances are in anticipation of drawing of seniority list by the respondents in a specific manner. The seniority list having not been drawn as yet, there is no occasion to consider the prayer of the petitioners. The relief, in the abstract form in which it has been prayed in this petition, cannot be considered and granted. 4. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law as and when cause of action arises. All rights and contentions on the issue are left open. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 30th September, 2026. (jai)