Judgment:
Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. This petitioner by medium of this petition has sought direction to the respondents to assign him seniority as reflected in the seniority list issued on 26.11.1987 and 23.5.1988. He has also sought promotion to the post of Forest Guard from the date respondents No. 3 to 6 were promoted.
2. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents whereby seniority of his client has been depressed vide seniority list issued on 3.10.1989 and 25.7.1991 is arbitrary and unconstitutional thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, his client had been shown above respondents No. 3 to 6 in the seniority list issued on 26.11.1987 and 23.5.1988. He further contended that his client was recruited through Employment Exchange and was confirmed before the private respondents. He lastly contended that his client was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Forest Guard before respondents No. 3 to 6.
3. Mr. J.R. Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-corporation has supported the action of the corporation of issuing the seniority lists as well as promotion of the private respondents to the post of Forest Guard vide order dated 29.10.1991.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.
5. Respondents No. 3 to 6 were appointed as daily wage Timber/Resin Watchers on 5.7.1975, 1.4.1979, 11.2.1976 and 1.5.1976, respectively. The petitioner was appointed as daily wage Timber/Resin Watcher on 10.7.1983.
6. One Sh. Biptu Ram and others filed CWP No. 362/1983 in this Court. They were daily rated wage Timber/Resin Watchers in the employment of the respondent-corporation. The respondent-corporation proposed to make regular recruitment to the post of Resin Watchers. The post of Resin Watcher was to be filled up by way of promotion failing which by direct recruitment. The promotions were to be made from amongst the daily wage Resin Watchers who were matriculate or equivalent and from amongst those daily wage Resin Watchers who were middle pass with five years service as daily wage Resin Watchers. These petitioners were qualified as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The stand of the respondent-corporation before this Court was that since the petitioners' name were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange; they could not be considered for promotion. This Court repelled the contention of the respondent-corporation. The Court held that the cases of the petitioners for being considered for promotion from amongst the cadre of daily rated Resin Watchers could not be rejected on the ground that their initial appointment has not been made in compliance with the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. The judgment was pronounced by this Court on 20.3.1984. It will also be necessary at this stage for the completion of facts to take note of the judgment of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal delivered in OA No. 75/1988 on 18.5.1989. The persons, who were appointed through Employment Exchanges, had filed this original application restraining the corporation-respondent from regularizing those persons whose names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange at the time of their initial appointments. This contention was rejected by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
7. The petitioner was regularized as Resin Watcher with effect from 13.7.1984 vide letter dated 2.12.1988. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan has drawn the attention of the Court to seniority list of Timber/Resin Watchers dated 26.11.1987 as it stood on 31.12.1986. The petitioner's name figured at Sr. No. 54. The name of respondent No. 3 figured at Sr. No. 55. Respondent No. 4 was shown at Sr. No. 79. The names of respondents No. 5 and 6 did not figure in this seniority list. The respondent-corporation issued another tentative seniority list of Resin Watchers as it stood on 1.4.1988 on 23.5.1988. The name of the petitioner was at Sr. No. 87 whereas respondent No. 3 figured at Sr. No. 88. Respondent No. 4 figured at Sr. No. 112. The names of respondents No. 5 and 6 did not figure in this seniority list. The respondent-corporation issued another seniority list on 3.10.1989. Respondent No. 3 was shown at Sr. No. 2, respondent No. 5 was shown at Sr. No. 3 and respondent No. 6 was shown at Sr. No. 6. Respondent No. 4 was shown at Sr. No. 19. The petitioner was assigned Sr. No. 60. Thereafter respondent-corporation issued another seniority list of Timber/Resin Watchers dated 25.7.1991 as it stood on 1.4.1991. In this seniority list, respondent No. 3 figured at Sr. No. 1, respondent No. 5 figured at Sr. No. 2, respondent No. 6 figured at Sr. No. 3 and respondent No. 4 figured at Sr. No. 12. The petitioner was assigned Sr. No. 65. The respondent-corporation gave deemed date of regularization after issuance of seniority list to the petitioner and respondents on 9.9.1991 vide Annexure A-9. The deemed date of regularization of respondents No. 3 and 4 was 31.7.1984. The deemed date of regularization of the petitioner was 1.9.1984. Respondents No. 3 to 6 were promoted to the posts of Forest Guards vide office order dated 29.10.1991 (Annexure A-13).
8. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan has vehemently argued that since his client's name figured above the private respondents in the seniority list dated 26.11.1987 and 23.5.1988, his seniority could not be depressed.
9. Mr. J.R. Thakur has vehemently argued that the seniority list has been altered on the basis of directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 362/1983 decided on 20.3.1984. There is merit in the submission of Mr. J.R. Thakur. It is evident from the records that initially, respondent-corporation had been regularizing only those Timber/Resin Watchers whose names were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. This action of the respondent-corporation was not approved by this Court. The Court had directed the respondent-corporation to make regularization/promotion to the post of Timber/Resign Watchers without insisting that the workmen were not engaged at the time of their initial appointment as per the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. This judgment, as noticed above, was pronounced by this Court on 20.3.1984. The respondent-corporation had started implementing the judgment whereby regularization was being made on the basis of length of service/seniority of the persons appointed as daily wage Timber/Resin Watchers. The Court has already noticed above that the respondents No. 3 to 6 were appointed before the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as daily wage Timber/Resin Watcher with effect from 13.7.1983. However, respondents No. 3 to 6 were appointed as wage Timber/Resin Watchers on 5.7.1975, 1.4.1979, 11.2.1976 and 1.5.1976, respectively. The private respondents on the basis of their length of service were required to be regularized before the petitioner. They had not been regularized only on the ground that their names were not sponsored by their respective Employment Exchanges. The respondent-corporation rectified this mistake and regularized the private respondents after taking into consideration their length of service. The corporation issued seniority list assigning correct seniority to the respondents No. 3 to 6 on 3.10.1989 and thereafter the same was followed on 25.7.1991. Their appointments on daily wage basis have been specifically mentioned in the seniority list. The respondent-corporation on the basis of seniority list had promoted respondents No. 3 to 6 to the posts of Forest Guards on 29.10.1991. There is no illegality in the order of the respondent promoting the private respondents on the basis of seniority list dated 25.7.1991.
10. The judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 362/83 dated 20.3.1984 was also followed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 75/1988 vide judgment dated 18.5.1989.
11. The matter is also required to be considered from another angle. The petitioner has not assailed the seniority list issued vide Annexures A-7 and A-8 dated 3.10.1989 and 25.7.1991 respectively. It was imperative for him to assail these seniority lists. The only prayer made by the petitioner in the petition is that the seniority assigned to the petitioner vide Annexures A-4 and A-6 be restored. This could only be done if the seniority lists issued subsequently were sought to be quashed and ultimately set aside. The petitioner has also not assailed Annexure A-13 whereby, respondents No. 3 to 6 have been promoted to the posts of Forest Guards. It was necessary for the petitioner to assail specifically the impugned promotion order dated 29.10.1991.
12. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid reasoning, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.