***

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. –

These two appeals arise out of a judgment dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1393 of 2020 (Kuldeep Kumar & ors. Vs. State of H.P. & ors.). Being connected and involving common questions of law and facts, the appeals have been heard together and are being adjudicated thereinafter.

2. The dispute in the writ petition essentially revolved around the seniority lists of Patwaris maintained in District Una and the Rules/Instructions in place for determining the seniority. The writ petition was instituted by respondents No. 3 to 8, seeking to maintain their seniority as was assigned to them ever since their induction into service and also for quashing the executive instructions concerning drawing of seniority, which were though issued on 30.6.1997 but had not been applied in District Una and an Office Communication dated 20.2.2020 by which the State intended to apply them retrospectively. The effect of implementation of such instructions more than two decades after their issuance would have been that seniority of writ petitioners would have been adversely affected. In fact, one such seniority list of Kanungos redrawn on 08.05.2020 on the basis of communication dated 20.02.2020 did affect the seniority positions of the writ petitioners. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. Instructions dated 10.07.1997 (Sic 30.06.1997) have been quashed; Seniority lists drawn on that basis, subsequent to the issuance of Office Memo dated 20.02.2020, have also been set aside; State has been directed to redraw the seniority lists as was done earlier without referring to 1997 executive instructions; Promotions conferred on the basis of seniority lists redrawn as per Office Memo dated 20.02.2020 have also been quashed. State has accepted the verdict, however the appellants who are beneficiaries of the seniority lists redrawn in the year 2020 have assailed the judgment in these appeals.

3. Following facts are not in dispute:

3(i) Writ petitioners and appellants along with others were inducted as Patwaris in District Una in the year 1997-98. The recruitment was as per the Himachal Pradesh, Revenue Department, Patwari Mohal (Class-III Non-gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules 1992 (in short the “1992 R&P Rules”) for the post. Patwari is a Class-III Non-gazetted post. Mode of recruitment is 100% by direct recruitment.

3(ii) State maintained the seniority lists of Patwaris in District Una in accordance with Clauses 15(A) and 15(B) of the 1992 R&P Rules. These Clauses provided for maintaining a register of Patwaris on the basis of their merit in the selection test for the post of Patwaris. The Rules further provide for giving appointments to the incumbents after their completion of Patwar training, passing of Patwar examination, practical training & in accordance with the merit in the selection test and roster framed by the authorities. Rule 15(A) and 15(B) of 1992 R&P Rules reads as under:

“15(A) Selection for training of Patwari candidate:-

(1) Selection for training to Patwari from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges in HP. shall be made on the basis of written test and Viva- Voce test, the standard/syllabus etc. of which shall be prescribed by the F.C. (Revenue).

(2) The maximum number of persons to, be selected by each District Collector, as Patwari candidates shall be 25% of the cadre strength or vacancies likely to occur in the next five years within the District which ever is less.

(3) The District Collector shall maintain a register of Patwari candidates selected for training in accordance with merit obtained in the selection test as prescribed in sub-rule (1) supra.

(4) Selected candidates shall have to undergo Patwari training as laid down in the Land Records Manual at their own expenses. On the completion of training the candidates shall have to qualify the Patwari examination by such standard and syllabus as may be prescribed by F.C.(Revenue) from time to time.

(5) A candidate who for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Distt. Collector for. not being able to successfully complete the patwari training, the District Collector with the approval of the F.C. (Revenue) may allow him to undergo fresh training in the same Distt. in the next batch and in case there is not training for the next batch during the next year in the same Distt., the F.C. (Revenue) may allow him to undergo the patwari training as a fresh candidate in other districts.

(6) On passing of Patwari Examination the candidate will be considered as "Qualified Patwari Candidate."

Provided that a candidate who does not qualify the patwar examination in the first attempt, he can qualify the same in two subsequent successive examinations, which shall be held for the purpose as prescribed by F.C. (Revenue).

Provided further that the candidate who do not qualify in the first attempt, their names will appear in the patwari candidates register below the candidates who have qualified in the first attempt in their own original order after, striking off their names from previous original place.

Provided further that the candidates who do not qualify in the second attempt, their names shall appear in the patwari candidates register below the candidates who have qualified in the second attempt in their own original order after striking off their names from the previous original places assigned to the candidates passing the said examination in second attempt:

Provided further that the candidates who fail to qualify the examination in third attempt, their names shall be struck off from the register maintained by the concerned District Collector.”

15(B) Direct Recruitment for the post of Patwari:-

A "Qualified Patwari Candidate" shall be offered the post of Patwari strictly in accordance with the seniority maintained in the patwari candidate register under rule 15 (A) as per roster prescribed by the State Government for filling up of vacancies reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes/other categories of persons from time to time.

Provided that if a qualified candidate does not accept the offer of appointment excepting the cases where the reasons are given to the satisfaction of the Appointing Authority, his name shall be struck off from the aforesaid register.”

3(iii) State issued instructions on 30.06.1997 clarifying that seniority of Patwaris appointed to service shall be maintained in order of merit obtained in Patwar examination and practical training by such candidates. The relevant portion of the instructions is reproduced as under:

“Sub: Appointment of Patwaris from the accepted Patwari candidates.

Sir,

I am directed to say that at present there exists the following provisions in para 3.6 of H.P. Land Records Manual for the appointment of patwaris from the accepted Patwari candidates.

Appointment of Patwaris:

3.6. The Deputy Commissioner, Settlement Office and Director, Consolidation of Holdings, shall appoint Patwari candidates in accordance with the Rules contained in Appendix I, III and V of this Manual and instructions issued by the H.P. Government in this behalf from time to time.

2. The above provisions is not clear. In order to make it more clear, it has been decided by the Government that suitable amendment be carried out in the above para 3.6 of H.P. Land Records Manual, 1997 will be substituted as under:

Appointment of Patwaris:

3.6. The Deputy Commissioner/Settlement Officers/Director of Consolidation of Holding, shall appoint patwari candidates from the accepted Patwari candidates in order of merit determined on the basis of patwar examination and practical training prescribed under the Rules contained in Appendix I, III and V of H.P. Land Records Manual and instructions issued by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh from time to time.”

3(iv) The tentative seniority list of Patwaris in District Una was issued on 5.11.1999. The list was drawn on the basis of the 1992 R&P Rules. The executive instructions dated 30.06.1997 were not followed while drawing the seniority list. Names of writ petitioners ranked higher than the appellants in this seniority list. Final seniority list was circulated on 7.01.2000. In this list also the writ petitioners ranked higher to the appellants.

3(v) Vide Notification dated 10.08.2009, the 1992 R&P Rules for the posts of Patwaris were repealed and new Recruitment & Promotion Rules i.e. the Himachal Pradesh, Revenue Department Patwari (Mohal), Clas-III (Non-Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2009 (in short the 2009 R&P Rules) came into force. Rule 15 of the R&P Rules underwent following amendment:-

“15 Selection for training of Patwari candidates and their recruitment for the post of Patwari –

(6) On passing of Patwari Examination, the candidate will be considered as Qualified Patwari Candidate. The Deputy Commissioner shall maintain another Register which will be called as ‘Qualified Patwaris Candidate Register’ in which the seniority of the Qualified Patwari Candidates will be fixed in accordance with their merit determined on the basis of Patwari Examination and practical training. The Qualified Patwari Candidates will be offered the post of Patwari, strictly in accordance with their seniority maintained in the ‘Qualified Patwari Candidate Register’, under rules ibid as per roster prescribed by the State Government for filling up of vacancies reserved for the candidates belonging to Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes/Other categories of persons time to time.

Provided that a candidate who does not qualify the Patwari Examination in the first attempt and qualify the same later on, their name/seniority will be placed/fixed in the Qualified Patwari Candidate Register below the candidates who have qualified in the first attempt.

Provided further that the candidates who do not qualify in the second attempt, their names/seniority will be placed/fixed in the Qualified Patwari Candidate Register below the candidates who have qualified in the second attempt.

Provided further that the candidates who fail to qualify the examination in third attempt, their names shall be struck off from the ‘Qualified Patwari Candidate Register’ maintained by the concerned District Commissioner.

Provided further that the qualified Patwari candidates will be offered the post of Patwari on batch wise basis, i.e. the Qualified Patwari candidates of first batch will be considered first for the post of Patwari and thereafter that of second batch, third batch and so on. Thus, the candidate who does not pass the Patwari examination in first attempt, but passes the same before or on the date of declaration of result of Patwari Examination of Qualified candidates of second batch, his name will be considered first for the post of Patwari irrespective of his merit obtained in the Patwari Examination. But in case, he passes said examination after the declaration of result of candidates of second batch and before or on the date of declaration of result of Qualified candidates of third batch, his name/seniority will be placed below the Qualified candidates of second batch but above the Qualified candidates of third batch irrespective of his merit obtained in the Patwari Examination and so on. Provided further that the factor of merit obtained in the Patwari Examination and practical training for the purpose of fixing seniority of Qualified Patwari Candidates will be applied only within the same batch and not in fixing seniority of Qualified candidates of different batches.

Provided that if Qualified Patwari Candidate does not accept the officer of appointment excepting the cases where the reasons are given to the satisfaction of the Appointing Authority, his name shall be struck off from the aforesaid register.”

In these appeals we are not concerned with the 2009 R&P Rules.

3(vi) Seniority list of Patwaris was again circulated on 21.2.2019 and further revised on 25.07.2019. The seniority positions of the writ petitioners and the appellants inducted under 1992 R&P Rules, as reflected in the final seniority list of 7.1.2000 were maintained. The writ petitioners figured as seniors to the appellants as hereto before. For determining the seniority of fresh recruits, the 2009 R&P Rules were applied.

3(vii) Some of the appellants and others represented to the State in the year 2018-19 pointing out errors in drawing of seniority lists of Patwaris in District Una. Their grievance was that seniority list was to be drawn on the basis of 1997 executive instructions i.e. on the basis of merit of candidates in Patwar examination and practical training and not on the basis of merit in the selection test. Upon consideration of the representations, the Deputy Commissioner, District Una referred the matter to the higher authorities on 5.10.2019. The matter was deliberated in the Government. It was found that seniority of Patwaris in most of the districts had been prepared on the basis of executive instructions dated 30.6.1997 but in District Una these instructions were not followed while drawing the seniority list. On 20.02.2020, the Deputy Commissioner Una was directed to redraw the seniority lists of Patwaris in District Una on the basis of executive instructions dated 30.06.1997. This action would have upset the seniority of writ petitioners who in the meantime had been further promoted to the posts of Kanungos. Hence, they instituted CWP No. 1393 of 2020 on 21.3.2020.

3(viii) The writ petition was first listed in the Court on 18.05.2020. By that time, in view of office memo dated 20.02.2020, seniority lists had been redrawn on the basis of executive instructions dated 30.06.1997. Seniority list of Patwaris was redrawn on 12.03.2020. Seniority list of promotional post of Kanungos was redrawn on 8.05.2020. These subsequent developments were brought on record and writ petition was amended under order dated 21.05.2020 passed in the writ petition. Writ petitioners who by that time had been promoted as Kanungos on the basis of their original seniority lists, were inter alia adversely affected by the seniority list of Kanungos redrawn on 8.05.2020. Following prayers were made in the amended writ petition:-

“i) That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances the impugned letter dated 20.2.2020 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed not to disturb the seniority of the petitioners as kanungo in District Una, in the interest of justice and fair play.

ii) That the executive instructions dated 30.6.1997 being in contravention to the statutory service Rules of 1992, may also kindly be quashed and set aside as the said instructions have overruled the statutory Rules notified in the year 1992.

iii) That the record pertaining to this case may kindly be called for, for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

iv) That the writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost.

v) That any other reliefs, which Hon’ble court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

vi) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents not to implement Annexure P-5 i.e. seniority list issued on 08.05.2020; and/or

vii) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside Annexure P-5 i.e. seniority list issued on 08.05.2020.”

Vide order dated 21.05.2020, State was restrained from making further promotions on the basis of seniority list dated 8.05.2020. Pursuant to certain orders passed in the writ petition further promotions were made by the State on the basis of redrawn seniority list issued on the basis of office communication dated 20.02.2020. The appellants on the basis of their seniority positions in the seniority list redrawn pursuant to office memo dated 20.02.2020 got promoted to the post Naib Tehsildars. Such promotions, however, were subject to the orders to be passed in the writ petition.

Before the learned Single Judge, a question was raised as to whether there was any provision for determining seniority of Patwaris in the 1992 R&P Rules and whether in terms of these R&P Rules, seniority of Patwaris could be determined on the basis of merit in the selection test. According to the writ petitioners, mechanism for determining seniority was there in the 1992 R&P Rules; The seniority was to be determined in accordance with Rules 15(A) and 15(B) of 1992 R&P Rules on the basis of merit in the selection test; The executive instructions issued on 30.06.1997 were incorporated in the 2009 R&P Rules; The 2009 R&P Rules will not have retrospective effect; The instructions dated 30.06.1997 till they were incorporated in the 2009 R&P Rules remained only executive instructions; They supplanted the 1992 R&P Rules. Whereas, according to the appellants, the 1992 R&P Rules were silent with regard to determining the seniority positions and this vacuum was filled by the executive instructions issued on 30.06.1997; Under these instructions, which supplemented the R&P Rules, the seniority of appointed Patwari candidates was to be determined in the order of merit on the basis of Patwar examination and practical training. The writ petition was allowed on 22.08.2022 with following operative directions:

“Therefore, in view of the above discussions, this Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. The Executive Instructions dated 10.07.1997 are held to be bad in law and ordered to be quashed as they supplant the provisions of 1992 Recruitment & Promotion Rules and not supplement the same. The seniority list subsequently issued on the basis of said Executive Instructions are also ordered to be set aside with direction to the respondents to redraw the fresh seniority as was being done earlier without referring to the annulled Executive Instructions. The promotions which have been conferred upon the private respondents etc. on the basis of their seniority as determined on the basis of the Executive Instructions which have been struck down by this Court are also ordered to be quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents to hold review Departmental Promotion Committee, if so required and make promotions after determining the seniority in terms of this judgment. No order as to cost. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.”

It was held in the impugned judgment that (i) Executive Instructions dated 30.06.1997 supplanted the provisions of 1992 R&P Rules, hence were bad in law. These were quashed; (ii) Seniority list redrawn and issued by the State on the basis of executive instructions dated 30.06.1997 on the basis of office communication dated 20.02.2020, was set aside. The State was directed to redraw the seniority list of Patwaris as was done earlier without referring to annulled executive instructions; (iii) The promotions conferred on the basis of seniority list redrawn and redetermined on the basis of 1997 instructions pursuant to the office communication dated 20.02.2020, were also quashed and set aside. Respondents were directed to convene meeting of Review Departmental Promotion Committee if so required and make promotions after determining the seniority in terms of the judgment.

4. Contentions & Consideration

4(i) Opportunity of Hearing

Learned counsel for the appellants first contended that appellants (in LPA No. 165 of 2022) had moved applications for their impleadment in the writ petition. These impleadment applications had not been decided and remained pending. The appellants were condemned unheard.

The above argument is contrary to the record. The writ record shows that many applications were moved by the appellants and orders were passed upon them from time to time. Orders have also been passed in the writ petition enabling the State to make promotions on the basis of impugned seniority list subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

It is appellants’ admitted case that they were heard by the learned Single Judge. Besides recording presence of learned Counsel in the attendance sheets, para-5 of the impugned judgment records that impleadment applications were allowed and the applicants therein were impleaded as party-respondents. The said paragraph reads as under:

“During the pendency of the petition, private respondents were impleaded. They were also given due opportunity to put forth their stand before the Court. Proposed respondents in CMPs No. 7296 and 7297 of 2022 were also heard. Formally, these applications are allowed by impleading the applicants as party respondents.”

Leave to appeal was granted to the appellants in LPA No. 171 of 2022 vide order dated 28.9.2022.

It will also be appropriate to notice here that writ petition was filed on 21.03.2020 when seniority positions of Patwaris had not been changed. At that time, appellants ranked juniors to the writ petitioners in the seniority list in place. Writ petitioners were not required to implead them as parties. After filing of the writ petition the State acted upon communication dated 20.02.2020 & redrew the seniority lists and implemented the executive instructions dated 30.06.1997 whereunder the appellants became seniors to the writ petitioners and some of them got further promotion on that basis. Some of the affected parties, like the appellants, in LPA No. 165 of 2022 were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. Their learned counsel attended the case hearings and were heard by the learned Single Judge. It is not the case of these appellants that they were not given adequate hearing. Some of the affected persons have been granted leave to appeal against the impugned judgment (in LPA No. 171 of 2022). Some of the affected parties moved applications and have been impleaded in these appeals as well.

We have heard all the appearing Counsel. In the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that cause propounded by the appellants was not considered or that appellants who sought their impleadment before the learned Single Judge were denied opportunity of hearing.

4(ii) Merits of the matter

4(ii)(a) The appellants have contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge that instructions dated 30.6.1997 supplanted 1992 R&P Rules, are not in order; That there was no provision whatsoever in the 1992 R&P Rules for determining the seniority positions of Patwaris. It was the executive instructions issued on 30.6.1997 that provided for maintaining seniority from selected Patwari candidates in order of merit determined on the basis of Patwar examination and practical training.

The contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners in defence of the impugned judgment is that Rules 15(A) and 15(B) of the 1992 R&P Rules covered the field for determining the seniority of Patwaris. As per these Rules, District Collector was to maintain a register of Patwari candidates selected for training in accordance with merit obtained in the selection test as prescribed in Rule 15(A)(1). Rule 15(A)(4) provided that selected candidates had to undergo Patwar training and on completion of training the candidates had to qualify Patwar examination. In terms of Rule 15(A)(5) a candidate who was not able to qualify the Patwar training was to be allowed to undergo fresh training in the same district in the next batch. Rule 15(A)(6) provided that on passing of Patwar examination the candidates will be considered as ‘Qualified Patwari Candidate’. Rule 15(B) stipulated that a ‘Qualified Patwari Candidate’ shall be offered post of Patwari strictly in accordance with the seniority maintained in the patwari candidate register under Rule 15(A). The contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that the seniority in terms of the 1992 R&P Rules, therefore, had to be maintained strictly in accordance with the merit of Patwari candidate register in Rule 15(A) i.e. on the basis of merit of the selection test.

Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that for the reasons and discussion in the succeeding paras we need not venture into the question whether seniority of Patwaris could be determined under the 1992 R&P Rules or whether it was required to be determined under the executive instructions dated 30.06.1997 or whether the 1997 executive instructions supplemented or supplanted the 1992 R&P Rules.

4(ii)(b) Settled Seniority/Delay & Laches

i) The appellants and the writ petitioners were inducted into service during the year 1997-98. Such induction was under the 1992 R&P Rules for the posts of Patwaris. First seniority list after the induction of the writ petitioners and appellants as Patwaris was circulated by the State on 5.11.1999. It was a tentative seniority list. Final seniority list was issued on 7.1.2000. The writ petitioners were assigned higher seniority positions than the appellants in these lists. According to the State and writ petitioners, seniority lists were prepared on the basis of merit obtained by the candidates including the writ petitioners, the appellants and others on the basis of their merit in the selection test held in terms of Rules 15(A) & 15(B) of the 1992 R&P Rules.

ii) Be that as it may. The fact remains that seniority list of Patwaris finalized on 7.01.2000 was never questioned by the appellants for over two decades. No grievance was raised by the appellants that seniority had been wrongly drawn on the basis of the 1992 R&P Rules or that the 1992 R&P Rules contained no provision for drawing the seniority list or that seniority was required to be determined as per executive instructions dated 30.06.1997 as was determined in some other districts of the State.

iii) Seniority list of Patwaris was thereafter issued on 21.2.2019 and revised on 25.07.2019. This was also in line and tune with the merit obtained in the Patwari selection test held under Rules 15(A) of 1992 R&P Rules. Seniority positions of the appellants and the writ petitioners remained as they were in the seniority list issued on 7.01.2000 or in other words writ petitioners enjoyed higher seniority positions than the appellants.

iv) For the first time, some Patwaris and Kanungos including some of the appellants filed representations to the State in the year 2019 that incorrect principle was applied for drawing the seniority list of Patwaris in the year 2000. They raised an issue that the seniority was required to be determined on the basis of executive instructions dated 30.06.1997 i.e. on the basis of merit of candidates in the Patwar/Departmental examination and training conducted by the Department. On examining the matter, the State found the seniority list of Patwaris issued on 7.01.2000 and 25.07.2019 to be defective. The seniority list of Patwaris was ordered to be redrawn vide Office Memo dated 20.02.2020 on the basis of executive instructions dated 30.06.1997.

v) It is well settled principle of service jurisprudence that settled seniority positions cannot be unsettled after long lapse of time.

In Dayaram Asanand Gursahani vs. State of Maharashta & others, (1984) 3 SCC 36, in absence of satisfactory explanation for delay of nine years in questioning under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of seniority assigned to the petitioner, his claim in that regard was held not entertainable.

In B.S. Bajwa & another vs. State of Punjab & others, (1998) 2 SCC 523, a grievance was raised about seniority positions by the incumbents in the year 1984 though they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the other persons. The Apex Court held that inter se rights had crystallised which ought not to have been reopened after the lapse of such a long period; At every stage, the others were promoted, seniority positions were known to the aggrieved incumbents right from the beginning. It was held that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. Inordinate delay in making a grievance is sufficient in itself to decline interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and to reject the writ petition.

The aforesaid pronouncements were considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Shukla & others vs. Arvind Rai & others, Civil Appeal No. 5966 of 2021 along with connected matter, decided 08.12.2021, where the seniority list in question was held to have been prepared in contravention to the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appointing authority would be bound by the Statutory Rules and any violation in this regard to the Statutory Rules would vitiate the seniority list. The same would be arbitrary, de hors the Rules and in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The only exception to above would be where there is unreasonable delay which is unexplained.

In this case, the seniority positions finalized on 7.01.2000 and accepted by all concerned were to be altered by the State vide Office Memo dated 20.02.2020. The purported premise for alteration was that incorrect principle was adopted by the State for framing the seniority list on 7.01.2000. Whether the reason assigned was justified, correct or not; whether the State had drawn correct seniority list in the year 2000 or not, is not important at this stage. What is significant is that more than twenty years have gone by from the date of finalization of first seniority list of Patwaris drawn on 7.01.2000. This seniority list has been accepted by all concerned including the appellants for more than twenty years. It has been acted upon by the State during all this period. Promotions of the incumbents have been effected on the basis of this seniority list. Therefore, on that ground alone, the seniority list finalized on 7.01.2000 could not have been altered in the year 2020.

In the instant case, seniority list was drawn on 7.01.2000 purportedly on the basis of Rules 15(A) & (B) of the 1992 R&P Rules. It is not that the list was contrary to the R&P Rules. The only thing that can be said at best is that Rules were not very happily worded. Be that as it may, the appellants are deemed to have knowledge of the seniority list, their seniority positions as well as the principle on which the seniority list was drawn. Merely saying now that appellants were not aware of the seniority list or that they ranked junior to the writ petitioners in that seniority list, is not sufficient explanation to unsettle the settled seniority positions. For more than twenty years, the seniority list was accepted and acted upon. Promotions had also been made on the basis of the seniority list. The appellants have failed to give cogent reasons for not assailing the seniority list within a reasonable period. The redrawal of seniority list after more than twenty years would not just affect a person or two but the seniority positions of more than 45 persons would be upset. The settled seniority position could not be unsettled. In R.S. Makashi & others vs. I.M. Menon & others, (1982) 1 SCC 379, writ petition was filed eight years after circulation of seniority list challenging the principles on which it was drawn. The Court held that belated petitions challenging the principles of seniority was not maintainable.

Malcom Lawrence Cecil D’Souza vs. Union of India & others, (1976) 1 SCC 599, holds that it is essential that anyone who feels aggrieved with an administrative decision affecting one’s seniority should act with due diligence and promptitude and not sleep over the matter. Raking up old matters like seniority after a long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should be given a quietus after lapse of some time.

K.A. Abdul Majeed vs. State of Kerala & others, (2001) 6 SCC 292 holds that after a long lapse of time the question of initial appointment could not be reopened at the instance of the private respondents and that too for altering his seniority.

Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & others vs. State of Orissa & others, (2010) 12 SCC 471, has held as under:

“30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In [K.R. Mudgal & others vs. R.P. Singh & others, (1986) 4 SCC 531], this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3 – 4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation.”

5. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, in our considered view, the writ petition had merits & has been justly allowed by the learned Single Judge.

During hearing of the case, it was informed by learned Counsel on both sides as also by learned Advocate General that in view of one of the directions in the impugned judgment whereby ‘executive instructions dated 10.07.1997 (sic 30.06.1997) were held to be bad in the eyes of law and quashed as such’, the settled seniority lists of Patwaris drawn in several other districts of the State on the basis of instructions dated 30.06.1997, are being redrawn. In view of above discussion, we direct that settled seniority lists of Patwaris in the other districts shall not be altered on the basis of directions issued in the impugned judgment. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Appeals dismissed.

********