The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of challenging seniority orders within a reasonable period and the impact of delay on the settled position of seniority.

Justice Rajiv Sharma J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.CWP (T) No.5447/2008 (OA No.2455/1998)

2. Petitioners No.1 and 2 were inducted in Himachal Pradesh Forest Service on 22.12.1983. Petitioners have assailed seniority list issued on 23.9.1998 of Himachal Pradesh Forest Service Officers of Himachal Pradesh Forest Department, as it stood on 1.1.1993. According to the seniority list issued on 23.9.1998, respondents No. 2 to 20 are appearing at Sr. No. 11, 12, 17, 23, 26, 29, 32, 36, 39, 43, 47, 51, 55, 58 and 62, respectively. Petitioners rank junior to these respondents. According to the petitioners, respondent-State has not taken into consideration the instructions issued on 7.2.1986 while issuing the seniority list. Case of the respondents, in a nutshell, is that seniority has been drawn on the basis of instructions issued on 22.12.1959 and according to them the instructions dated 7.2.1986 have been adopted with effect from 7.10. 1986.

3. Appellant was inducted in the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service on 22.12.1983. He has assailed the seniority list issued on 23.9.1998, as it stood on 1.1.1993 by filing OA No. 2545 of 1998 before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was transferred to this Court and was assigned CWP (T) No.2163/2008. It was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 24.4.2009. Appellant-petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 24.4.2009 by present Letters Patent Appeal. Principal grounds to assail the seniority list are the same as taken by the petitioners in CWP (T) No. 5447/2008.

4. Mr. H.K. Paul has strenuously argued that the seniority list of the petitioners was required to be determined on the basis of instructions issued on 7.2.1986. He also contended that training period could not be counted as service for the purpose of seniority.

5. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent-State and Mrs. Ranjana Parmar appearing for respondents No. 3 to 5 have strenuously argued that the present petition is barred by delay and laches. According to them, the seniority list has been issued strictly as per the instructions issued on 22.12.1959. They have also contended that the instructions dated 7.2.1986 have been adopted by the respondent-State only with effect from 7.10.1986. They also contended that the period of training is required to be counted on the basis of the amendment carried out in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules called ‘the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service (Class-II) Recruitment, Promotion and certain conditions of Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 1986".

6. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General has also argued that the issue whether the training period is to be counted towards service or seniority is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. J.L. Sharma and another reported in (1998) 1 SCC 727.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.

8. Petitioners were inducted in the Himachal Pradesh Forest Service on 22.12.1983 and appellant in LPA No. 106/2009 was also inducted in Himachal Pradesh Forest Service on 22.12.1983. Private respondents were recruited directly in April, 1985 and they were sent on training in the month of November, 1985 and April, 1986, respectively.

9. Final seniority list of Himachal Pradesh Forest Service, as it stood on 1.1.1987, was published on 5.5.1989. Petitioners have not filed any representation against the same. Thereafter the tentative seniority list was published on 6.3.1993. Petitioners have also not chosen to file any representation against the same. Petitioners have assailed only the final seniority list issued on 23.9. 1998. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General and Mrs. Ranjana Parmar have brought to the notice of the Court that private respondents have fu