IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 16879 of 2026. Decided on : 29th September, 2026 Poonam Thakur ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Petitioner, aged about 52 years, and currently serving as Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes and Excise), seeks quashing of seniority list of Excise and Taxation Inspectors, circulated by the respondents on 8.11.2013. 2. Heard and considered the case file. 3. Petitioner joined the respondent department as an Excise and Taxation Inspector (ETI) on 05.09.1998. On 26.08.2013, tentative seniority list of Excise Taxation Inspectors was circulated by the respondents inviting objections thereto. Admittedly, petitioner did not prefer any objections to the tentative seniority list of ETIs. Final seniority list of ETIs depicting the position as on 01.08.2013 was circulated by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent department on 08.11.2013 (Annexure P-10). Name of the petitioner figured at serial number 268 of this final seniority list. Based upon this final seniority list of Excise and Taxation Inspectors, the respondents issued notifications from time to time promoting eligible ETIs to the post of Excise and Taxation Officers, Class-I (Gazetted). In this manner, petitioner, on the basis of aforesaid final seniority list of ETIs circulated on 08.11.2013, was promoted as Excise and Taxation Officer on 27.09.2017 (Annexure P-14). On 28.07.2021, the respondent department circulated seniority list of Excise and Taxation Officers. Petitioner felt aggrieved against this list and laid challenge to it on several grounds in CWP No. 7305 of 2022, which is pending for adjudication. Instant writ petition was instituted by the petitioner on 09.09.2026, seeking quashing of final seniority list of ETIs circulated on 08.11.2013 (Annexure P-10). 4. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and on consideration of the case file, the claim of the petitioner has to be turned down being hopelessly barred by unexplained delay, laches and acquiescence. It is well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that settled seniority positions cannot be unsettled after long lapse of time. In 3 Dr. Ashok Verma vs. State of H.P. and Others2 relying upon Suresh Kapoor and others vs. State of H.P. & others3 it was held that there has to be an element of repose and a stale claim, more particularly to the one relating to seniority and promotion, cannot be resuscitated. As regards the service matters, more particularly pertaining to seniority and promotion, the delay is to be strictly construed, or else it would amount to unsettling the settled matters after a lapse of time. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career. Future promotion of a government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. Seniority, once settled, is decisive in upward march in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty, assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect amongst colleagues, which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If settled seniority is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility amongst the government servants. Relevant portions from the decision are as under:- “4(i). Legal position may first be noticed:- In Pervesh Kumari Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others (LPA No. 165 of 2022, decided alongwith connected matter on 14.05.2024), the principle of law that settled 2CWP No. 2662 of 2023, decided on 19.11.2024. 3CWP No. 1218 of 2021, decided on 01.12.2022 4 seniority positions cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time, as enunciated in several precedents, was noticed as under:- “v) It is well settled principle of service jurisprudence that settled seniority positions cannot be unsettled after long lapse of time. In Dayaram Asanand Gursahani vs. State of Maharashta & others, (1984) 3 SCC 36, in absence of satisfactory explanation for delay of nine years in questioning under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of seniority assigned to the petitioner, his claim in that regard was held not entertainable. In B.S. Bajwa & another vs. State of Punjab & others, (1998) 2 SCC 523, a grievance was raised about seniority positions by the incumbents in the year 1984 though they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the other persons. The Apex Court held that inter se rights had crystallised which ought not to have been reopened after the lapse of such a long period; At every stage, the others were promoted, seniority positions were known to the aggrieved incumbents right from the beginning. It was held that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. Inordinate delay in making a grievance is sufficient in itself to decline interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and to reject the writ petition. The aforesaid pronouncements were considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Shukla & others vs. Arvind Rai & others, Civil Appeal No.5966 of 2021 along with connected matter, decided 08.12.2021, where the seniority list in question was held to have been prepared in contravention to the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appointing authority would be bound by the Statutory 5 Rules and any violation in this regard to the Statutory Rules would vitiate the seniority list. The same would be arbitrary, de hors the Rules and in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The only exception to above would be where there is unreasonable delay which is unexplained. In this case, the seniority positions finalized on 7.01.2000 and accepted by all concerned were to be altered by the State vide Office Memo dated 20.02.2020. The purported premise for alteration was that incorrect principle was adopted by the State for framing the seniority list on 7.01.2000. Whether the reason assigned was justified, correct or not; whether the State had drawn correct seniority list in the year 2000 or not, is not important at this stage. What is significant is that more than twenty years have gone by from the date of finalization of first seniority list of Patwaris drawn on 7.01.2000. This seniority list has been accepted by all concerned including the appellants for more than twenty years. It has been acted upon by the State during all this period. Promotions of the incumbents have been effected on the basis of this seniority list. Therefore, on that ground alone, the seniority list finalized on 7.01.2000 could not have been altered in the year 2020. In the instant case, seniority list was drawn on 7.01.2000 purportedly on the basis of Rules 15(A) & (B) of the 1992 R&P Rules. It is not that the list was contrary to the R&P Rules. The only thing that can be said at best is that Rules were not very happily worded. Be that as it may, the appellants are deemed to have knowledge of the seniority list, their seniority positions as well as the principle on which the seniority list was drawn. Merely saying now that appellants were not aware of the seniority list or that they ranked junior to the writ petitioners in that seniority list, is not sufficient explanation to unsettle the settled seniority positions. For more than twenty years, the seniority list was accepted and acted upon. Promotions had also been 6 made on the basis of the seniority list. The appellants have failed to give cogent reasons for not assailing the seniority list within a reasonable period. The redrawal of seniority list after more than twenty years would not just affect a person or two but the seniority positions of more than 45 persons would be upset. The settled seniority position could not be unsettled. In R.S. Makashi & others vs. I.M. Menon & others, (1982) 1 SCC 379, writ petition was filed eight years after circulation of seniority list challenging the principles on which it was drawn. The Court held that belated petitions challenging the principles of seniority was not maintainable. Malcom Lawrence Cecil D’Souza vs. Union of India & others, (1976) 1 SCC 599, holds that it is essential that anyone who feels aggrieved with an administrative decision affecting one’s seniority shouldact with due diligence and promptitude and not sleep over the matter. Raking up old matters like seniority after a long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should be given a quietus after lapse of some time. K.A. Abdul Majeed vs. State of Kerala & others, (2001) 6 SCC 292 holds that after a long lapse of time the question of initial appointment could not be reopened at the instance of the private respondents and that too for altering his seniority. Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & others vs. State of Orissa & others, (2010) 12 SCC 471, has held as under: “30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In [K.R. Mudgal & others vs. R.P. Singh & others, (1986) 4 SCC 531], this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years 7 unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3 – 4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.” It will also be appropriate to take note of the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Devinder Dutt Sharma Versus State of H.P. & Others4. The petitioner therein was Joint Director (Health). His seniority as Block Medical Officer, Chief Medical Officer, Deputy Director (Health) and Additional Director (Health) was sought to be reviewed by the private respondent (therein) inis representation. The respondents therein justified their action of rectifying the seniority list by submitting that it was in their competence to rectify the errors in the seniority list, which crept up as the inter-se merit of the eligible incumbents was not considered appropriately by the DPC. The Court took strong exception to the action of the respondents in violating the rules of natural justice in not hearing the petitioner before passing the adverse order against him. While allowing the writ petition, the Court inter alia observed as under on the unsettling of long settled seniority position and violation of principles of natural justice:- “14. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is clearly evident that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Medical Officer way back in the year 1992. The final seniority list of Medical Officers as it stood on 30.03.2000 was issued on 05.03.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as a Block Medical Officer on 08.11.2010 and the seniority list of Block Medical Officer was circulated on 25.07.2013. In the same, the petitioner was senior to Dr. Keshav Ram, Dr. Harsharan Kaur and Dr. Ghanshyam Upadhaya. The same was never challenged or assailed by the aforesaid three individuals subsequent thereto promotions were effected to the post of Chief Medical Officer and the petitioner was promoted to the post of 4CWP No.8185 of 2022, decided on 02.11.2023. 8 Chief Medical Officer on 27.12.2016 w.e.f. 24.05.2016. Herein again a seniority list was circulated on 08.11.2017. In the said list again, Dr. Keshav Ram, Dr. Harsharan Kaur and Dr. Ghanshyam Upadhaya were junior to the petitioner. The same was never assailed by the aforesaid three individuals. 15. It is only when a representation is filed on 23.2.2019 by Dr. Keshav Ram that a review DPC is held on 20.02.2020. In pursuance to the aforesaid review DPC held on 20.02.2020, vide Notification dated 11.03.2020, the recommendations made for promoting the petitioner to the post of Block Medical Officer, in the panel for the year 2010, was altered. As has already been stated supra, the seniority list pertaining to Block Medical Officers was circulated vide memo dated 25.07.2013. No objection qua the same were ever filed by the aforesaid three individuals namely Dr. Keshav Ram, Dr. Harsharan Kaur and Dr. Ghanshyam Upadhaya. Hence, to lay a challenge to the same in the year 2019 and to get the same reviewed in the year 2020 is patently illegal as the same has not been done within the prescribed period i.e. 3 to 4 years as laid down in the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court as relied upon by the petitioner. 16. Besides the aforesaid, once a representation laying challenge to the seniority assigned to the petitioner had been filed by Dr. Keshav Ram on 23.02.2019. A copy of the same should have been forwarded to the petitioner for his response. The same was essential in order to comply with the Rules of natural justice, as the allowing of the aforesaid representation was to have serious civil consequences on the petitioner. Rather than following the aforesaid procedure, the respondents-authority held a review DPC made alterations in the settled seniority of Block Medical Officer. Thereafter, held a review DPC on 03.12.2021, whereby the date of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Chief Medical Officer was 9 changed from 24.05.2016 to 09.01.2017 and further a recommendation to withdraw promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Director had also been taken. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Notification dated 28th December, 2021 is quashed in so far as it pertains to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to restore the seniority of the petitioner prior to the DPCs conducted on 20.02.2020 and 13.12.2021 with all consequential benefits.” While dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against aforesaid decision in Dr. Amit Gupta vs. Dr. Ashok Verma and Others5 Hon'ble Division Bench held as under: “8. The Apex Court way back in 1974 in P.S. Sadasivcaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 has held that the issue of promotion and seniority, as such, had to be contested at the earliest, preferably within six months and even one year’s grace can be granted. In the present case, as noticed, from 2015 till the 1st representation filed on 08.02.2021, a period of six years had elapsed and the present appellant had consented and accepted the fact that the writ petitioner was senior to him. Thus, the Secretary had upset the well-settled seniority in the Institute by placing the appellant at a position above the writ petitioner without even adhering to the basic principles and violating the principles of natural justice openly. 8(A). The Apex Court has examined the said principle of delay and laches in High Court of Judicature of Patna Versus Madan Mohan Prasad and others, (2011) 9 SCC 65. Similarly, in Vijay Kumar Kaul and others Versus Union of India and others, (2012) 7 SCC 610, the Apex Court has held that the claim for seniority is to be put-forth at the earliest and belated approach is impermissible and equity which may exist in favour of one melts into total insignificance and goes to the path of 5LPA No. 223 of 2025, decided on 16.09.2025 10 extinction. Similarly, in State of Uttaranchal and another Versus Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, (2013) 12 SCC 179, the stale claims were not held liable to be entertained by the Tribunal while noting the earlier decision in C. JacobVersus Director of Geology and Mining, 1 (2008) 10 SCC 115, that consideration of representations, as such, would revive the stale and dead claims and resultantly, the orders passed by the Court below were set aside. 9. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the view which has been taken by the learned Single Judge, does not require any interference and the appellant had to agitate for his cause and fixation of his seniority at the earliest in the years 2015-2016 and thereafter having accepted the promotion of the writ petitioner, now cannot turn around and claim to be placed at a higher pedestal. Resultantly, there is no plausible reason to entertain the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.” Hon’ble Apex Court in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. R. Sasipriya6 has reaffirmed the principle that fence sitters are barred from raising dispute regarding seniority or challenging promotion order once matter has reached its conclusion; That no party can claim relief as a matter of right; One of the well recognized grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the Court is guilty of delay and laches. A court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage the agitation of stale claims, particularly in matter of seniority and promotion, where the rights of third parties have crystallized in interregnum. 6 Civil Appeal Nos. 6883-6884 of 2026, decided on 04.03.2026. 11 In the instant case, admittedly, tentative seniority list of Excise & Taxation Inspectors (ETIs) was circulated by the respondents on 26.8.2013. Petitioner did not object to the aforesaid list. Final seniority list was circulated on 8.11.2013. It is not the case of the petitioner that aforesaid lists were not to her knowledge at the relevant time. Based upon the aforesaid seniority list, respondents have been making further promotions to the post of Excise and Taxation Officers from time to time. Petitioner herself has been the beneficiary of such an exercise, as vide notification dated 27.9.2017, she was promoted to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer. Petitioner had certain grievances to the seniority list of ETOs that was circulated by the respondents on 28.7.2021. She took legal recourse against the said seniority list by instituting CWP No. 7305 of 2022. Even at that stage, petitioner did not challenge the seniority list of ETIs circulated on 8.11.2013. At this stage, her claim against the seniority list of 8.11.2013 is highly belated, stale and suffers from acquiescence as well. The petitioner cannot be allowed to lay challenge to the aforesaid seniority list after lapse of 13 years, more so when she had taken legal recourse in the year 2022 against the seniority list (dated 28.07.2021) of Excise and Taxation Officers, i.e. the post to which she was promoted on 27.09.2017 on the basis of her position in the seniority list of ETIs dated 12 08.11.2013. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 29th September, 2026. (jai)