The petition is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act due to a nine-year delay. Additionally, the 'catch-up' rule allows general category seniors to regain seniority over reserved category candidates who received accelerated promotions.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

The petitioner by way of present writ petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

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

“i) That rejection letter dated 03.02.2007 and seniority lists as it stood on 31.12.2014 and 31.12.2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to show the applicant over and above the private respondents with all consequential benefits.

ii) That in case any promotions are made to the post of Naib Tehsildar/Tehsildar on the basis of impugned seniority lists the same may be quashed and set aside and thereafter respondents may be directed to hold review DPC and applicant may be promoted ont the basis of those recommendations made by DrPC with all consequential benefits.”

Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Patwari against the category of Scheduled Tribe. However, he was shown at Sr. No.23 in the merit list of selected candidates dated 28.05.1989 (Annexure A-1). Respondent No.4 was H shown to be at Sr. No.4 in the select list, though he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe category, as per his own admission before the competent authority. No steps were taken by the respondents-State to substitute name of respondent No.4, though he made a representation dated 08.06.1989 (Annexure A-2).

The petitioner was promoted as Kanungo on 20.03.2004, on the basis of his being from Scheduled Tribe category, as evident from a perusal of final seniority list of Kanungos for District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh for the year 2006-2007, dated 28.08.2007 (Anonexure A-3), issued by respondent No.3. In the senior ity list issued for the year 2012- 2013, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No.24 and confirmed as Kanungo w.e.f. 01.01.2007. The “Remarks” column in the said seniority list shows that he belongs to Schedule Tribe category (Page 25). It is only in the year 2015, that the respondent-State had issued the final seniority list of Kanungos, and persons junior to the petitioner have been placed above him, though the juniors were promoted in the year 2010, whereas, the petitioner was promoted in the year 2004. The seniority of the petitioner has been changed due to instructions dated 27.05.1996 and the petitioner immediately represented to the competent authority stating that the instructions dated 27.05.1996 are not applicable to his case, since he was appointed from Schedule Tribe category and was required to be shown at Sr. No.4.

It has been averred that the petitioner had earlier made a representation dated 02o.08.2006 (Annexure A-6), which came to be rejected o n 03.02.2007 (Annexure A-7) (Page-94). The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the respondent-State has not taken any steps to correct the seniority in the cadre of Kanungo and fixation of seniority of the petitioner on the basis of the instructions dated 27.05.1996, is not only illegal, but also patently against the rules and instructions. Instead of correcting the record, the respondent-State had rejected the claim of the petitioner in the year 2007.

Respondents No.1 to 3-State filed reply to the petition and averred that the petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has concealed material facts. The petitioner was rightly awarded roster point No.24, as Scheduled Tribe IRDP candidate in the year 1988-89, when he was selected as a Patwari candidate and roster point No.4 in the same list had to be assigned to a Scheduled Tribe candidate and not to a Scheduledo Tribe IRDP candidate, to which the petitioner belongs. T he petitioner had represented his case before the District Collector, which was considered and rejected by him vide order dated 03.02.2007. The petitioner has failed to either represent the matter before the next higher authority or before any competent Court, against order of rejection of his repres