2026:HHC:16798 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 387 of 2020 Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 Yakub Mohd. and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhay, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No. 4 to 9 ex-parte. [ Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (oral) By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to correct the seniority list (30.9.2015 of district Chamba) as per the 1st appointment of volunteer teacher qua the present petitioners. (ii) That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued to quash and set aside the Annexure P- 5. (iii) That the writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost.” 2. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings are that petitioner No.1 and petitioners No.2 to 5 were engaged as volunteer 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16798 teacher on 7th November, 1988 and 2nd March, 1990, respectively. From the initial date of their engagement, they are working with full devotion. It is also pleaded in the petition that the petitioners have been awarded the special certificate of JBT after completion of ten years continuous service. Thereafter, the respondent-State had issued seniority list in respect of the Junior Basic Teachers (JBT) and the petitioners were rightly assigned the seniority positions for the years 2007, 2009 and 2011. However, when the latest seniority list was prepared on 30.09.2015 and circulated during the year 2016, the private respondents No. 4 to 9 were placed senior to them, which action on the part of the respondent-State is pleaded to be bad in the eyes of law. 3. It has further been averred that despite raising objections against the seniority list, no action was taken, and as such, seniority list issued on 30.09.2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. The respondent-State has filed reply to the petition and averred that the petition is not maintainable because the petitioners were appointed as volunteer teachers under the Himachal Pradesh Volunteer Teacher Scheme, 1985. The Government of Himachal Pradesh had taken the policy decision vide letter dated 27.11.1995 when the volunteer teachers, who had completed ten years of continuous service in Government Primary Schools, be given Special Junior Basic Training Certificates and the volunteer teachers, who had 3 2026:HHC:16798 worked in the Literacy Camps for two years, be given one year relaxation in grant of specific Junior Basic Certificates i.e. in their case, ten years period would be reduced to nine years. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as volunteer teacher on 07.11.1988 and was regularized as JBT on 07.11.1998 after awarding special JBT certificate that too on the completion of ten years continuous service and he has been given seniority from the date of his regularization. Similarly, other petitioners have been regularized. On 11.12.1998, the Government had amended the Education Code. The claim of the petitioners to correct the seniority list (30.09.2015 of District Chamba) as per the first appointment of the volunteer teacher cannot be entertained since they did not prefer the objections to the tentative seniority list, at the time, when it was circulated, which has now attained finality in the absence of any challenge. The State government has full powers to change a policy and apply it prospectively. Therefore, the State Government had revised the 1991 policy, prospectively and the cut off date of 01.08.1998 was also based on a rational criterion. 5. It has further been averred that earlier the petitioners were wrongly granted seniority from the date of joining as volunteer teachers. However, the said position was corrected in the year 2015 when the seniority to each volunteer teacher appointed has been given from the date of regularization. The service rendered as volunteer teacher 4 2026:HHC:16798 cannot be considered for seniority from the date of his/her having joined as a volunteer teacher. 6. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made in the reply. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not file objections to the tentative seniority list, at the time, when it was circulated, whereafter the final seniority list was issued on 30.09.2015. The respondent-State was bound to consider the objections only in case the same were raised against the tentative seniority list. Once the final seniority list was circulated on 30.09.2015, which is based on the policy decision taken by the respondent-State, whereby, it was decided to assign the seniority only from the date of regularization, the plea taken by the petitioners that once they had been appointed earlier to the private respondents, cannot be countenanced for two reasons, (i), the petitioners did not prefer objections to the tentative seniority list circulated by the respondent-State and (ii), there is no challenge to the policy decision, taken by the respondent-State, whereby it has decided to assign the seniority from the date of regularization. Once, the policy decision has not been challenged, this Court cannot accede to the request made by the petitioners in the present case. 5 2026:HHC:16798 9. Further, the seniority list though issued on 30.09.2015 has been received by the petitioners on 20.07.2016, as per Annexure P-6, but the instant petition has been filed on 16.01.2020 i.e. after more than 3½ years. No doubt, there is no period of limitation prescribed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but in the matter of seniority, the Court cannot unsettle the settled position after long time. In the present case, even as per the petitioners, they had come to know about the final seniority list dated 30.09.2015 on 22.07.2016, then why did they not come to the Court immediately. Furthermore, once the petitioners have not challenged the criteria to assign the seniority from the date of regularization, they cannot harp on the earlier seniority position when they were assigned senior to the private respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that once the petitioners had raised the issue before the Competent Authority in the year 2016, they were waiting for the outcome of the representation made by them and when the respondent-State did not take a final call in the matter, they have come to this Court and thus, the delay cannot be fatal in their case. No doubt, the petitioners have made representations against the final seniority list, but the respondent-State was not bound to consider the same, especially when, the petitioners have not preferred any objections against the tentative seniority list. Further, once the respondent-State has taken a policy decision to 6 2026:HHC:16798 assign seniority from the date of regularization, no fault can be found with the seniority list, wherein, the petitioners have assigned places below the private respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed on 28.08.2023 in CWP No.963 of 2023, titled, Rakesh Kumar Sharma and others vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others to contend that in the similar facts, this Court had allowed the petition and the seniority list of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Department of Public Works, Government of Himachal Pradesh as it stood on 31.12.2022, showing the placement of private respondents above the petitioners, was quashed and set aside. It has been held in the judgment that the entire period of service of the petitioners from the initial date of their engagements on contract basis as Junior Engineers (Electrical) is liable to be considered for the purposes of seniority. However, the said judgment is not attracted to the facts of the present case on the grounds that firstly, in the case of the petitioners, they were offered appointment as volunteer teachers and no procedure as contemplated under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules was followed and secondly, in the aforementioned judgment, immediately after publishing the final seniority list as it stood on 31.12.2022, the affected persons had approached this Court by preferring the writ petition, which was registered as CWP No.963 of 2023, whereas, in the present case, the petitioners had waited 7 2026:HHC:16798 for three and half years even after coming to know about the final seniority list issued on 31.09.2015 as per their own claim on 22.07.2016 (Annexure P-6). 12. As already held above, once the petitioners have not preferred any objections against the tentative seniority list, the respondent-State is not bound to consider the representations made against the final seniority list. The petitioners cannot take any advantage of making the representations against the final seniority list. 13. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) Judge May 12, 2026 (meera)