Rama Gupta vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Rajiv Sharma, J.—In the seniority list of Clerks, circulated by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was assigned seniority position at Sr. No. 33 and respondents No. 3 and 4 at Sr. Nos. 38 and 37 respectively. It appears that respondents No. 3 and 4 filed O.A. No. 3344/1994 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Respondent No. 3 moved an application bearing No. M.A. No. 851 of 2007 in O.A. No. 3344/1994. It was disposed of by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and the respondent-Department was directed to the take final decision regarding seniority list. Thereafter, the impugned seniority list was issued by the respondent-Department on 28.7.2007 vide Annexure A-3. There are two channels of promotions from the post of Clerk. The Clerk can either be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant or Statistical Assistant. The petitioner was called upon to exercise her option on 14.5.2010. She opted for both the posts, i.e. Senior Assistant and Statistical Assistant. She was promoted to the post of Statistical Assistant on the basis of her option on 2.2.2012. Senior Assistant and Statistical Assistant are separate cadres. Petitioner has not challenged promotion of respondents No. 3 and 4 as Senior Assistants.

Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that his client has given option for both posts.

The petitioner was required to give option for one post. She was promoted to the post of Statistical Assistant on 2.2.2012. The petitioner has gone in new stream after exercising option on 14.5.2010. She had not made any representation against her promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant on 2.2.2012.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.