Challenges to seniority lists should not be entertained after a reasonable period of existence, and delay in raising disputes regarding seniority can result in the dismissal of claims.

1. Heard Mr. Suraj Narain Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shatroghan Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. S.C. Yadava, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.5 and Mr. Ashok Shukla, learned Counsel for the Commission.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and order dated 7.8.2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 1986 of 2012 (Rakesh Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition preferred by the petitioner for re-determining the seniority. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the Principal Secretary, Industrial Department, Lucknow (opposite party No.1), whereby the petitioner's representation with regard to determination of seniority has been rejected.

3. According to the petitioner, after due selection and recommendation of the Public Service Commission, he was appointed on a substantive post of Printing Overseer through direct recruitment on 21.9.1993 under the Director, Printing and Stationary, U.P., Allahabad. On completion of satisfactory services of two year, his services were confirmed w.e.f. 21.9.1995 vide order dated 30.9.2000. On 17.12.1999, the Director, Printing and Stationary, U.P., Allahabad, issued a joint seniority list of Printing Overseers, who were appointed directly or through promotion. In the said seniority list, the name of the petitioner was mentioned at serial No. 2 being only direct recruitee and rest of the persons in the seniority list were promotee.

4. It has been stated that the next promotion of the petitioner was to be made on the post of Assistant Director and for this post, the petitioner was eligible when vacancy for the post of Assistant Director occurred in the year 1996-97, but no departmental promotion committee was constituted till 30.6.2003. In the meantime, selection through direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Director (regular) took place and one Sri Suresh Chandra Tyagi (opposite party No.5) was appointed on 1.11.1999. Subsequently, the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Public Service Commission vide its letter dated 25.6.2003 and in pursuance thereof, he was promoted as Assistant Director by the Director, Printing and Stationary, U.P., Allahabad vide order dated 2.7.2003 against the vacancy caused in the year 1996-97 w.e.f. date of joining on the promoted post.

5. According to the petitioner, after about five years of his promotion, opposite party No.2-the Director, Printing & Stationery, Allahabad, vide order dated 19.1.2008, circulated a tentative seniority list, wherein the name of the petitioner was placed below opposite party No.5 (Sri Suresh Chandra Tyagi). Therefore, the petitioner raised objection to the said seniority list, stating therein that he was promoted against the vacancy occurred in the year 1996-97 but was promoted w.e.f. 2.7.2003 due to departmental lapse and, as such, he is entitled for notional promotion w.e.f. 1996-1997, therefore, the seniority list be corrected. According to the petitioner, when no heed was paid by the department, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 989 (S/B) of 2012 [Rakesh Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. and others] which was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 3.9.2012 with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Industrial Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.

6. In compliance of the judgment and order dated 3.9.2012, referred to above, the opposite party No.1 examined the claim of the petitioner but found no substance in it and accordingly rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 12.12.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing a Claim Petition No. 1986 of 2012, which was dismiss