Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J
1. The present is a seniority dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3. Petitioner’s grievance is to the order dated 03.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Principal Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh-respondent No.1 that unsettled the seniority position being enjoyed by the petitioner over respondent No.3 since the year 2009 and made him junior to the aforesaid respondent.
2. Contours of the seniority dispute may now be noticed:-
2(i). Petitioner and respondent No.3 both are presently serving as Professor Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBG) in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College and Hospital, Kangra at Tanda (in short ‘Dr. RPGMC Tanda’).
2(ii). Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (OBG) on 30.07.2009 on direct recruitment basis and posted as such in Dr. RPGMC Tanda.
Respondent No.3, serving as Medical Officer ever since 19.01.1991, was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor on 26.11.2009 and posted as such in Dr. RPGMC Tanda.
It is an admitted factual position that the petitioner and respondent No.3 remained posted in the same specialty in the same department and the petitioner enjoyed higher status than respondent No.3 in view of his prior appointment as Assistant Professor.
2(iii). Respondents No.1 and 2 issued tentative seniority list of Assistant Professors in Dr. RPGMC Tanda as on 01.01.2015 vide office memorandum dated 09.03.2015. Name of the petitioner was reflected at Sr. No.1, whereas that of respondent No.3 was shown at Sr. No.2 of the seniority list with their dates of appointment/promotion to the post reflected as 31.07.2009 and 26.11.2009, respectively.
2(iv). Respondents No.1 and 2 convened meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for making promotion of eligible Assistant Professors (OBG) in Dr. RPGMC Tanda. On the basis of recommendations of the DPC, the petitioner, serving as Assistant Professor, was promoted as Associate Professor vide notification dated 23.05.2015. At that time, respondent No.3 was serving as Assistant Professor in the same department and in the same college.
2(v). Petitioner was further promoted to the post of Professor in the Department of OBG in Dr. RPGMC Tanda vide notification/office order dated 30.12.2019. That is how the petitioner is presently serving as Professor (OBG) in Dr. RPGMC Tanda.
While the petitioner was serving as Professor, respondent No.3, who was then serving as Assistant Professor, was promoted to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of OBG in Dr. RPGMC Tanda vide notification/office order dated 06.01.2020.
2(vi). One year after the promotion of respondent No.3 as Associate Professor, he moved a representation on 08.02.2021 (Annexure R3/1) to respondent No.1, raising a seniority issue vis-à-vis petitioner. Respondent No.3 claimed that in terms of Chapter 13 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-I, Second Edition, Government of Himachal Pradesh, seniority was required to be determined as per the roster of appointment as Assistant Professor and not as per the date of joining/promotion/ appointment in the same calendar year. Relevant para from the representation reads as under:-
“10. The rule which makes me senior to Dr. Ashok Verma was not considered while promoting him as associate professor which says that seniority of the person should be determined as per roster of appointment as assistant professor and not as per date of joining, if promoted/appointed in the same calendar year (before 31st December of same year). This rule has been quoted from “Handbook of Personnel Matters Vol.-I. Second Edition, Govt. of HP. Chapter 13. Seniority Subtitle-6. Relative seniority of direct recruits and promotes.” I regret for the late representation as I was not aware of this before said rule.”
Respondent No.3 raised a grievance in his representation that promotion to the post of Associate Professor was wrongly given to the petitioner on 23.05.2015. Respondent No.3 ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, being senior to the petitioner in view of his having been promoted to the post of Assistant Professor. That by applying the instructions contained in Chapter 13 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, the seniority of direct recruits vis-à-vis promotees had to be determined in the ratio of 50:50 in the manner as (1) Promotee, (2) Direct Recruit (3) Promotee, (4) Direct Recruit. Respondent No.3, being promotee, should have been reflected at Sr. No.1 of the seniority list of Assistant Professors. These instructions had not been followed by respondents No.1 and 2 while determining seniority of Assistant Professors, which caused prejudice to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 sought to place himself above the petitioner.
Representation dated 08.02.2021 was followed by a supplement dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure R3/2). In the supplement, respondent No.3 highlighted the issue raised by him in the above extracted paragraph 10 of his representation and further submitted that the seniority list of Assistant Professors was never circulated to him.
2(vii). While representation of respondent No.3 was being deliberated upon in the respondent-Health Department, he while serving at that time as Associate Professor, was further promoted to the post of Professor on 06.09.2022.
Post of Professor is the feeder category post for promotion to the post of Principal/Head of Department (HoD) (administrative post). The post of Principal/HoD is filled up 100% by promotion from the eligible Professors.
2(viii). Respondent No.3 instituted Civil Writ Petition No.96 of 2023. Petitioner was not impleaded as party to the writ petition. During hearing of the said writ petition, relief was confined concerning decision upon the pending representations of respondent No.3 dated 08.02.2021 and 15.02.2021. Submission was made for respondent No.3 (petitioner therein) that he would be satisfied in case respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of his representations within some time bound manner. In view of this submission, the writ petition was disposed of on 20.03.2023, directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the representations of respondent No.3 in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks. The merits of the matter were not gone into by the Court.
2(ix). Pursuant to the above direction, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order on 03.05.2023 (Annexure P-10). The order directed placing respondent No.3 above the petitioner as Assistant Professor (OBG) and on that basis, he was ordered to be placed above the petitioner in the final seniority list of Assistant Professors as on 01.01.2015. Subsequent DPCs were also ordered to be reviewed. The order was passed on the basis of Clause/Subtitle 6 of Chapter 13 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol-I, Second Edition pertaining to provisions of determining relative seniority between direct recruits and promotees.
It is at this stage the petitioner instituted present writ petition seeking following substantive relief:-
“i) That the impugned order dated 03.05.2023, Annexure P-10, may be held illegal and quashed and set aside.”
Vide interim order dated 10.05.2023, the operation of the impugned order dated 03.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) was stayed.
3. Submissions:-
3(i). Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are primarily focused upon the principle that settled seniority cannot be unsettled after a long period of time. That respondent No.3 had acquiesced in the seniority position assigned to the petitioner ever since the year 2009. On the basis of higher seniority position of the petitioner, he had been promoted as Associate Professor and then Professor prior in time to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was very well aware of the higher seniority position and status enjoyed by the petitioner w.e.f. the year 2009.
Therefore, on the basis of executive instructions containing the principles of determining seniority between direct recruits and promotees, respondents No.1 and 2 cannot be allowed to unsettle the seniority position of the petitioner, which he enjoyed w.e.f. 2009 over respondent No.3. It was also submitted that while passing the impugned order, petitioner had not even been heard, though his rights were being deliberated upon and then adversely affected by the impugned order.
3(ii). Argument of learned counsel for respondent No.3 is that respondent No.3 was not aware at the relevant time about the principles to be applied for determining the seniority between direct recruits and promotees. He acquired the knowledge of the applicable instructions in the year 2021. Immediately thereafter, he represented for rectifying the errors that had crept in the seniority list of Assistant Professors and for reviewing the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor and thereafter as Professor. The tentative seniority list of Assistant Professors dated 09.03.2015, reflecting the petitioner at Sr. No.1 and respondent No.3 at No.2, was never circulated. Respondent No.3 was not aware of the seniority positions. Hence, there was no delay and laches in respondent No.3’s representing to respondent No.1 against the incorrect seniority positions assigned to the petitioner and respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also submitted that respondent No.3 had prayed for his being placed above the petitioner in view of the instructions contained in Chapter 13 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol-I, in terms of which, while determining seniority between direct recruits and promotees appointed/promoted in the same calendar year, roster of (1) Promotion, (2) Direct (3) Promotion (4) Direct, was required to be followed. Had the respondents properly implemented the instructions, respondent No.3, being promotee, would have ranked senior to the petitioner. This was an error committed by respondents No.1 and 2 while drawing the seniority list and while considering the petitioner as senior to respondent No.3 throughout ever since his recruitment as Assistant Professor in the year 2009. The petitioner became aware of the instructions only in the year 2021, hence, his representation and cause of action did not suffer from delay and laches. Reliance in this regard was placed upon Ajay Kumar Shukla and others Versus Arvind Rai and others (2022) 12 SCC 579, more particularly para 39 thereof, which reads as under:-
“39. The plea to defend the seniority list prepared contrary to the statutory provisions on the ground of delay would be a difficult proposition. Apart from the submission of the appellants that there is no delay as they came to know of the three separate lists only in March 2010, even if it is assumed that there was some delay and a fresh seniority list was being prepared in 2009-2010 again contrary to the provisions of statutory rules, such seniority list cannot be sustained or defended on the ground of delay of five years.”
3(iii). Learned Deputy Advocate General raised the same points as put forth by learned counsel for respondent No.3.
4. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, I am of the considered view that in the given facts and circumstances, respondent No.3 cannot be permitted to raise seniority dispute at this stage. The impugned order dated 03.05.2023 requires to be interfered with. This is for the following reasons:-
4(i). Legal position may first be noticed:-
In Pervesh Kumari Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others LPA No.165 of 2022, decided alongwith connected matter on 14.05.2024, the principle of law that settled seniority positions cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time, as enunciated in several precedents, was noticed as under:-
“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.”
It will also be appropriate to take note of the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Devinder Dutt Sharma Versus State of H.P. & Others CWP No.8185 of 2022, decided on 02.11.2023. The petitioner therein was Joint Director (Health). His seniority as Block Medical Officer, Chief Medical Officer, Deputy Director (Health) and Additional Director (Health) was sought to be reviewed by the private respondent (therein) in his representation. The respondents therein justified their action of rectifying the seniority list by submitting that it was in their competence to rectify the errors in the seniority list, which crept up as the inter-se merit of the eligible incumbents was not considered appropriately by the DPC. The Court took strong exception to the action of the respondents in violating the rules of natural justice in not hearing the petitioner before passing the adverse order against him. While allowing the writ petition, the Court inter alia observed as under on the unsettling of long settled seniority position and violation of principles of natural justice:-
“14. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is clearly evident that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Medical Officer way back in the year 1992. The final seniority list of Medical Officers as it stood on 30.03.2000 was issued on 05.03.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as a Block Medical Officer on 08.11.2010 and the seniority list of Block Medical Officer was circulated on 25.07.2013. In the same, the petitioner was senior to Dr. Keshav Ram, Dr. Harsharan Kaur and Dr. Ghanshyam Upadhaya. The same was never challenged or assailed by the aforesaid three individuals subsequent thereto promotions were effected to the post of Chief Medical Officer and the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Medical Officer on 27.12.2016 w.e.f. 24.05.2016. Herein again a seniority list was circulated on 08.11.2017. In the said list again, Dr. Keshav Ram, Dr. Harsharan Kaur and Dr. Ghanshyam Upadhaya were junior to the petitioner. The same was never assailed by the aforesaid three individuals.
15. It is only when a representation is filed on 23.2.2019 by Dr. Keshav Ram that a review DPC is held on 20.02.2020. In pursuance to the aforesaid review DPC held on 20.02.2020, vide Notification dated 11.03.2020, the recommendations made for promoting the petitioner to the post of Block Medical Officer, in the panel for the year 2010, was altered. As has already been stated supra, the seniority list pertaining to Block Medical Officers was circulated vide memo dated 25.07.2013. No objection qua the same were ever filed by the aforesaid three individuals namely Dr. Keshav Ram, Dr. Harsharan Kaur and Dr. Ghanshyam Upadhaya. Hence, to lay a challenge to the same in the year 2019 and to get the same reviewed in the year 2020 is patently illegal as the same has not been done within the prescribed period i.e. 3 to 4 years as laid down in the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court as relied upon by the petitioner.
16. Besides the aforesaid, once a representation laying challenge to the seniority assigned to the petitioner had been filed by Dr. Keshav Ram on 23.02.2019. A copy of the same should have been forwarded to the petitioner for his response. The same was essential in order to comply with the Rules of natural justice, as the allowing of the aforesaid representation was to have serious civil consequences on the petitioner. Rather than following the aforesaid procedure, the respondents-authority held a review DPC made alterations in the settled seniority of Block Medical Officer. Thereafter, held a review DPC on 03.12.2021, whereby the date of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Chief Medical Officer was changed from 24.05.2016 to 09.01.2017 and further a recommendation to withdraw promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Director had also been taken.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Notification dated 28th December, 2021 is quashed in so far as it pertains to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to restore the seniority of the petitioner prior to the DPCs conducted on 20.02.2020 and 13.12.2021 with all consequential benefits.”
4(ii). Reverting to facts of the case, petitioner and respondent No.3 both were posted as Assistant Professors (OBG) in Dr. RPGMC Tanda in the year 2009 or in other words, they were serving as Assistant Professors in the same specialty and in the same college. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor directly on 30.07.2009, whereas respondent No.3 was promoted as such on 26.11.2009. It is not in dispute that from day one of his appointment as Assistant Professor, the petitioner has been enjoying higher rank and status than respondent No.3, who joined the department as Assistant Professor on 26.11.2009. It cannot be expected that respondent No.3 was not aware that the petitioner had been ranked and considered higher in seniority than him, even if it is presumed that tentative seniority list of Assistant Professors issued vide office memorandum dated 09.03.2015 was not circulated to him, as claimed by him. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor on 23.05.2015. At the relevant time, respondent No.3 was serving as Assistant Professor. Respondent No.3 obviously was aware of the fact that the petitioner was enjoying higher rank in seniority over him and that is how the petitioner got promoted as Associate Professor on 23.05.2015. The petitioner was further promoted as Professor on 30.12.2019. Respondent No.3, at that time, was still serving as Assistant Professor. The facts pleaded that respondent No.3 was not aware about petitioner’s higher seniority position or that the tentative seniority list had not been circulated to him, are only arguments of desperation. In the facts of the case, when both the petitioner and respondent No.3 were serving in the same department and in the same college, it has to be presumed that respondent No.3 was aware of petitioner’s higher rank in seniority over respondent No.3. Therefore, the factual contention raised that the seniority/higher rank assigned to the petitioner over respondent No.3 w.e.f. the year 2009 was not to the knowledge of respondent No.3 only on the ground that the tentative seniority list dated 09.03.2015 was not to his knowledge, is rejected.
4(iii). It is also not in dispute that respondent No.3 never objected to the higher seniority position/rank/status given to the petitioner as Assistant Professor (OBG) in Dr. RPGMC Tanda w.e.f. the year 2009. He accepted the petitioner as a higher ranking Doctor over him. Respondent No.3 did not object to the promotion of the petitioner as Associate Professor on 23.05.2015. Assuming for the sake of argument that respondent No.3 was not aware about the tentative seniority list dated 09.03.2015, in which the petitioner had been placed at higher pedestal than respondent No.3, then also, in case respondent No.3 had any grievance against the higher position/seniority of the petitioner, it was for him to object to petitioner’s promotion as Associate Professor on 23.05.2015, which he did not do. Respondent No.3 acquiesced in the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor. Not only that, petitioner was further promoted as Professor on 30.12.2019. It is not the case of respondent No.3 that he ever objected to the promotion of the petitioner as Associate Professor or Professor at any point of time whatsoever.
In view of above paras 4(i) to 4(iii), it has to be held that the seniority claim of respondent No.3 over the petitioner suffers from unexplained delay and laches. It has to be construed that respondent No.3 had acquiesced in the higher seniority position assigned to the petitioner. He cannot be permitted to open these issues at this belated stage.
4(iv). Respondents No.1 and 2 while issuing impugned order, ordered upsetting the long settled seniority, which the petitioner enjoyed over respondent No.3 and also ordered for holding review DPC for withdrawing petitioner’s promotion as Associate Professor on 23.05.2015 & as Professor on 30.12.2019. Petitioner’s civil rights were under consideration and were adversely affected by respondent No.1 under the impugned order. Yet respondent No.1 did not care to follow principles of natural justice. No opportunity was given to petitioner to place his case before issuing the impugned order.
It is more than settled that there has to be an element of repose and a stale claim more particularly to the one related to seniority & promotion cannot be resuscitated. As regards the service matters, more particularly pertaining to seniority and promotions, the delay is to be strictly construed or else it would amount to unsettling the settled matters after a lapse of time. Seniority is a civil right, which has an important and vital role to play in one’s service career. Future promotion of a government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one’s chosen work or calling and gives certainty, assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues, which is paramount factor for good and round administration. If settled seniority is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the government servants [Refer: Suresh Kapoor and others Versus State of H.P. and others CWP No.1218 of 2021, decided on 01.12.2022].
4(v). The ratio of the decision rendered in Ajay Kumar Shukla’s2 case, relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.3, will not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the aforesaid case, 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.
The claim of respondent No.3 of higher seniority position over the petitioner is not based upon the Statutory Rules, but is based upon the instructions contained in Chapter 13 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol-I, Second Edition, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Further, unreasonable delay on part of respondent No.3 in questioning petitioner’s seniority is absolutely unexplained. Respondent No.3, as noticed above, has been throughout aware of the higher seniority and status enjoyed by the petitioner over him ever since the year 2009. He cannot claim ignorance of petitioner’s higher seniority position merely by alleging that seniority list of Assistant Professors prepared on 09.03.2015 was not circulated to him. Petitioner and respondent No.3 had been working as Assistant Professors in the same department and in the same college. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 fairly conceded during hearing that petitioner did enjoy higher status in the department than respondent No.3 as Assistant Professor with effect from the year 2009 even though seniority list of Assistant Professors was issued on 09.03.2015, reflecting petitioner as senior to respondent No.3. Petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor on 23.05.2015 and Professor on 30.12.2019, while respondent No.3 was still serving as Assistant Professor. Respondent No.3 raised no demur or protest at any point of time prior to 08.03.2021 against higher seniority position and promotions given to the petitioner.
Howsoever strong an employee’s case on merits against seniority position may be, he is required to lay it out in open at the relevant time-within reasonable period. Seniority dispute is not ‘Snakes & Ladders’ game, where an official occupying a high position can be brought down to ground level by mere roll of dice at any time at the desire of the other official occupying a lower position.
5. In view of the above discussion, I find merit in the instant petition. The same is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 03.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) is quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
