Dismissed¶31

Jagat Pal v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Jul 2025LPA/332/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seniority determination; promotion dispute; Cleaner-cum-Conductor; daily wage appointment; Departmental Recruitment Committee selection 23.12.1998; order of merit versus age; regularization 2008; policy dated 09.09.2008; Para 13.4.3 Handbook on Personnel Matters Volume-I; belated and time-barred objections; cut-off period; six-month rule; H.P. Institute of Public Administration Class-IV employees; P.S. Sadasivaswamy 1974 AIR 2271; High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Madan Mohan Prasad (2011) 9 SCC 65; Letters Patent Appeal; Himachal Pradesh High Court Shimla; LPA No.332 of 2024; Jagat Pal v. State of H.P.

What did the court decide?

There is no scope for interference in the decision of the Department as duly upheld by the learned Single Judge; accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. ¶31

Jagat Pal Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.3374 of 2019 dismissing the writ petition — thereby upholding the rejection order dated 04.02.2014 [Annexure P-8] of the appellant's request for promotion and the seniority list dated 31.12.2012 [Annexure P-2] placing the private respondent above him — was liable to interference in this Letters Patent Appeal. +2 more

¶9

Court's answer

There is no scope for interference in the decision of the Department as duly upheld by the learned Single Judge; accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitioner, having been shown at Serial No.2 way back on 23.12.1998, having accepted the placement below the private respondent, and having been regularized in the year 2008, could not file time-barred objections after the cut-off period; this is another ground to uphold the order of the Authorities and of the learned Single Judge.

¶29

Key takeaways

The relative seniority of direct recruits is to be determined by the order of merit in which they were selected; the writ petitioner had been placed in second position by the Departmental Recruitment Committee as per his performance in the interview, and the order under challenge clarified that selection was done on merit basis.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal (High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, LPA No.332 of 2024, decided 04.07.2025) — G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Ranjan Sharma, J dismissed the appeal, upholding the learned Single Judge's dismissal (24.05.2024) of CWPOA No.3374 of 2019. The appellant Jagat Pal and private respondent Dharam Prakash were both selected and appointed by the Departmental Recruitment Committee on 23.12.1998 (daily wage basis; 41 of 109 Employment Exchange candidates interviewed), the appellant being placed second on interview merit. His claim to seniority based on earlier part-time service failed as the services of both were terminated w.e.f. 31.08.1992; regularization in 2008 under the policy dated 09.09.2008 contained no clause making an older appointee senior on the same date of appointment; seniority was governed by Para 13.4.3 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-I (order of merit of direct recruits). The rejection order dated 04.02.2014 [Annexure P-8] and the seniority list dated 31.12.2012 [Annexure P-2] placing the private respondent (promoted as Cleaner-cum-Conductor) above the appellant were upheld. The tentative seniority list circulated on 09.09.2009 drew no objection; the list circulated on 13.04.2012 went unchallenged; and objections to the circulation of 14.08.2013 were filed late on 07.12.2013 [Annexure P-3]. Relying on P.S. Sadasivaswamy (1974 AIR 2271) and High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Madan Mohan Prasad ((2011) 9 SCC 65), the court held that issues of promotion must be raised at the initial point of time, preferably within six months, and time-barred objections filed after the cut-off period could not be entertained. Pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of.

¶1

2025:HHC:21672

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

LPA No.332 of 2024 Decided on: 04.07.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Jagat Pal ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

For the appellant : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2-State. Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶8

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

¶9

The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.3374 of 2019, titled as Jagat Pal versus State of H.P. & Others, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed on 24.05.2024. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the order of challenge dated 04.02.2014

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2025:HHC:21672

¶12

¶13

[Annexure P-8], whereby the request of writ petitioner had been rejected by respondent No.2 for promotion and the order of private respondent being promoted as Cleaner-cum-Conductor, was justified and the seniority list dated 31.12.2012 [Annexure P-2], whereby the private respondent being placed over and above the writ petitioner, was not liable to be quashed.

¶14

2. The reasoning given by learned Single Judge as such, was that the appointment of both the writ petitioner and private respondent [Dharam Prakash], has been done by the Departmental Recruitment Committee on 23.12.1998 and it was by way of selection as such. Though they were appointed on daily wage basis but as many as 41 candidates appeared for interview out of 109 names received from different Employment Exchanges and at that point of time, the private respondent had been placed over and above the writ petitioner. It was accordingly held that no challenge had been laid to the said proceedings and the claim as such, that on earlier occasion, he had been appointed on part-time service, earlier than the private respondent, was without any basis, since services of both the

¶15

2025:HHC:21672

¶16

¶17

employees had been terminated w.e.f. 31.08.1992. Resultantly, it was held that benefit of part-time service and resultant seniority claimed on that basis, on account of regularization, was not justified.

¶18

3. The reasoning also as such, by learned Single Judge was that when the regularization was done in the year 2008, it was on the strength of the policy dated 09.09.2008 and the policy did not contain any such Clause that the person older in age would also be senior, if appointed on the same date. Learned Single Judge accordingly, came to the conclusion that selection was done by Departmental Recruitment Committee and therefore, instructions in Para 13.4.3 of Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-I was applied.

¶19

4. Another ground made was that tentative seniority list had been circulated on 09.09.2009 and no objection had been raised to that and accordingly, subsequent seniority list issued, had been circulated on 13.04.2012 and the writ petitioner had not challenged such seniority list.

¶20

5. We have gone through the writ file also. The

¶21

2025:HHC:21672

¶22

¶23

order under challenge dated 04.02.2014 [Annexure P-8]

¶24

also clarifies the fact that while dealing with the representation of the writ petitioner dated 21.12.2013, that the selection was done on merit basis. As per the general principle for determination of seniority, as envisaged in the handbook, the relative seniority of direct recruits would be determined by the order of merit, on which they were selected and the writ petitioner had been placed on second position by the Departmental Recruitment Committee, as per his performance in the interview.

¶25

6. Apparently, the seniority list was also circulated vide letter dated 14.08.2013 as it stood on 31.12.2012 of Class-IV employees of H.P. Institute of Public Administration. Objections were to be submitted before 26.08.2013, failing which the same would be treated as final. Apparently, objections were not filed within the prescribed time also, as they were only filed on 07.12.2013 [Annexure P-3]. Therefore, the writ petitioner had also accepted the circulation of seniority list. It is only on account of rejection as such, by the formal order dated 04.02.2014, a fresh cause of

¶26

2025:HHC:21672

¶27

¶28

action arose. The settled principle is that the issues of promotions are to be raised at the initial point of time, as laid down by the Apex Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 2271, 1975 SCR (2) 356 and within 6 months preferably. The main principle was reiterated in High

¶29

Court of Judicature at Patna vs. Madan Mohan Prasad & Others (2011) 9 SCC 65. The writ petitioner having been shown at Serial No.2 way back on 23.12.1998 had accepted the placement below the private respondent and had been regularized in the year 2008. Therefore, at the subsequent point of time, he could not file time barred objections as noticed above, after the cut off period, which is another ground for us to uphold the order of the Authorities and that of the learned Single Judge.

¶30

7. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion

¶31

that there is no scope for interference as such, in the decision of the Department and duly upheld by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

¶32

2025:HHC:21672

¶33

¶34

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

¶35

shall also stand disposed of.

¶36

(G.S. Sandhawalia)

¶37

Chief Justice

¶38