Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1909/2025 on 18 November, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:10199
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS/1909/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mohd. Shafy, Advocate for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel
for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal
in District Haridwar in 1992. According to
him, in the earlier seniority list, issued
from time to time, he was placed at the
correct place with reference to the date of
his substantive appointment, however, in
the seniority list issued in the year 2019,
his settled seniority position was disturbed
and he was placed below persons, who
were appointed after him as Lekhpal.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner points out that the seniority
list issued in 2019 was challenged by the
petitioner by filing a writ petition, which
was disposed of, vide order dated
8.10.2020 with the direction to the
competent authority to take decision on
petitioner's objection. He submits that the
objection filed by petitioner was rejected
and petitioner's seniority was wrongly
fixed, below his junior.
5. In this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged the order of promotion dated
10.10.2025, issued by District Magistrate,
Haridwar, whereby respondent no. 5 has
been promoted as Naib Tehsildar on ad-
hoc basis.
2025:UHC:10199
6. Learned State Counsel points out
that respondent no. 5 is senior to the
petitioner as per seniority list finalised in
2019.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that petitioner is
challenging the seniority list of 2019, also
in this writ petition.
8. Learned State Counsel submits that
seniority list cannot be challenged after
more than six years of its issuance. He
submits that since other members of
service acquired a definite position, based
on a seniority list, therefore, challenge, if
any to the seniority list, has to be made
within a reasonable time. He relies upon
judgment dated 1.8.2023, rendered by
Division Bench of this Court in Special
Appeal No. 76 of 2023 (Anil Kumar Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others).
9. This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned State
Counsel. Challenge to the seniority list has
to be made within a reasonable period, as
held by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tilokchand
Motichand & others Vs. H.B. Munshi,
reported in (1969) 1 SCC 110. Paragraph
no. 18 of the said judgment is reproduced
below:-
"18. It seems to me, however, that the above
solution is not quite appropriate for petitions under
Article 32. A delay of 12 years or 6 years would
make a strange bed-fellow with a direction or order
or writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari and
prohibition. Bearing in mind the history of these
writs I cannot believe that the Constituent Assembly
had the intention that five Judges of this Court
should sit together to enforce a fundamental right at
the instance of a person, who had without any
reasonable explanation slept over his rights for 6 or
12 years. The history of these writs both in England
and the U.S.A. convinces me that the underlying
idea of the Constitution was to provide an
2025:UHC:10199
expeditious and authoritative remedy against the
inroads of the State. If a claim is barred under the
Limitation Act, unless there are exceptional
circumstances, prima facie it is a stale claim and
should not be entertained by this Court. But even if
it is not barred under the Indian Limitation Act, it
may not be entertained by this Court if on the facts
of the case there is unreasonable delay. For
instance, if the State had taken possession of
property under a law alleged to be void, and if a
petitioner comes to this Court 11 years after the
possession was taken by the State, I would dismiss
the petition on the ground of delay, unless there is
some reasonable explanation. The fact that a suit for
possession of land would still be in time would not
be relevant at all. It is difficult to lay down a precise
period beyond which delay should be explained. I
favour one year because this Court should not be
approached lightly, and competent legal advice
should be taken and pros and cons carefully
weighed before coming to this Court. It is common
knowledge that appeals and representations to the
higher authorities take time; time spent in pursuing
these remedies may not be excluded under the
Limitation Act, but it may ordinarily be taken as a
good explanation for the delay."
10. In the present case, the seniority list
was finalised in 2019, thus, the challenge
to the seniority list is now being made by
the petitioner after six years. Such belated
challenge cannot be entertained.
11. Accordingly, the relief as claimed by
petitioner, cannot be granted.
12. The writ petition fails and is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
18.11.2025
Navin
NAVEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb904
6f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15,
CHANDRA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103
819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB
21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2025.11.18 17:35:19 +05'30'
