The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that long-standing seniority cannot be challenged in a court of law, and the importance of timely challenge to seniority lists.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. However for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 44 of 2022 alone are being considered and discussed.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:

(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the original record and pleased to quash the impugned ex-parte order dated 10.08.2020 along with amended seniority list dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure No. 6) issued by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Dr. Rekha Khare Officiating Principal MKP (PG) College Dehradun District Dehradun and restore old long standing seniority lists in which the petitioner had been shown senior to the respondent no. 6.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to the effect that they shall issue revised seniority list of 2020 declaring therein the petitioner senior to the private respondent no. 6.

3. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on ad hoc basis in M.K.P. (P.G.) College, Dehradun, in the year 1985. Her services were regularized by Director, Higher Education in the year 1992. M.K.P. (P.G.) College is a Government aided college, which was earlier affiliated to a State University, namely H.N.B. Garhwal University. After conversion of the said University as a Central University, concerned college is affiliated with H.N.B. Garhwal Central University.

4. According to the petitioner, in the year 2003, a seniority list was prepared by the competent authority in the aforesaid college, in which petitioner was placed above respondent No. 6. Thereafter, in 2004, the inter se seniority position between petitioner and respondent No. 6 was reiterated. Petitioner has challenged the seniority list issued by Officiating Principal of the aforesaid college on 10.08.2020, whereby the inter se seniority of petitioner and respondent No. 6 has been reversed. It is contended that the seniority lists issued in 2003 and 2004 were never challenged by respondent No. 6 before appellate / judicial forum, therefore, the Officiating Principal of the college could not have altered the seniority position of the petitioner qua respondent No. 6. The seniority list prepared in 2020 is challenged also on the ground that it has unsettled long standing inter se seniority position amongst teachers of M.K.P. (P.G.) College, which is not permissible.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 submits that seniority list issued in the years 2003 and 2004 were only tentative, therefore, the Officiating Principal was well within her right to issue fresh seniority list in 2020. Thus, according to learned counsel, the impugned seniority list does not call for any interference.

6. Perusal of the impugned seniority list dated 10.08.2020 reveals that inter-se seniority of teachers of M.K.P. (P.G.) College, Dehradun was revised pursuant to a letter issued by Director, Higher Education, on 07.11.2003.

7. It is not in dispute that the seniority lists issued in 2003 and 2004 were holding the field till 2020, and promotions of faculty members in the aforesaid college were made based on ranking of teachers in the said list. Thus, the earlier seniority list has to be treated as final for all practical purposes, even if the word “final” is missing in such list.

8. Learned counsel for the parties admit that respondent No. 2, Dr. Rekha Khare, Officiating Principal, who issued impugned seniority list, herself claimed promotion to the post of Principal, based on seniority list issued in 2003. Thus, the argument that the list issued in 2003 was only tentative, cannot be accepted.

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa, 2010 (12) SCC 471, held that long standing seniority cannot be challenged in a court of law. Paragraph Nos. 18 to 24 of the said judgment are