[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 28 November, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2271 of 2024
Date of Decision: 28.11.2025
_______________________________________________________
.
Pardeep Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Bir Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
rt
Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General.
____________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Precisely, the question, which needs to be determined in
the case at hand is that "Whether promotion from the due date, or
from the date on which the promotional post became available, can be
denied merely on the ground that meeting of Departmental Promotion
Committee could not be convened for want of certain clarifications?"
2. Explicitly, relevant facts, as emerge from the pleadings,
adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner, after
his having completed Matriculation in the year 1984, passed Diploma
in the trade of Surveyor in the year 1986 (Annexure P-1 colly). On the
basis of aforesaid qualification, petitioner was appointed as Surveyor
on daily wage basis with the respondent-department w.e.f 02.11.1986.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Services of the petitioner were regularized as Surveyor w.e.f.
01.01.1997. After his having completed three years regular service,
.
petitioner, pursuant to permission granted by the department, took
admission in the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education Deemed
University Gandhi Vidya Mandir Sardarshahr, Rajathan (in short
"IASE") in three year diploma course of Civil Engineering. Petitioner
of
completed said diploma in the year 2009 in first division from afore
institute (Annexure P-2).
3.
rt
As per the petitioner, he had become eligible for
promotion to the post of Junior Engineer in terms of Recruitment &
Promotion Rules formulated by the department concerned in the year
2013, but yet despite there being availability of vacancies, he was
denied promotion from the due date.
4. Bare perusal of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the
post in question, notified vide notification dated 05.06.2004, reveals
that Surveyors having Diploma of at least three years duration in the
trade of Civil Engineering or its equivalent from Institution/University
recognized by the Central/State Government with three years regular
service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc service rendered
upto 31.03.1998, if any, are eligible for promotion to the post of Junior
Engineer (Annexure P-3). Subsequently, Government of Himachal
Pradesh, in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission, amended Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of
Junior Engineer (Civil), Class-III (Non-gazetted), Technical Services in
.
Irrigation and Public Health Department, Himachal Pradesh. As per
amended Recruitment & Promotion Rules, the quota was increased
from 3% to 5%. Primarily, Rule 11(i) of the Notification dated
26.06.2013 is relevant for adjudication of the case at hand (Annexure
of
P-4).
"11. In the case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer,
grade from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made-By
rt
promotion from amongst the following:-
(i) Surveyors having Diploma of at least three
years duration in the trade of Civil Engineering or its
equivalent from an Institute/University recognized by
the Centra/H.P. Government with 3 years regular
service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc
service rendered, if any, in the grade, failing which
the quota will go to Colum 11(ii) below.............5%?
5. In terms of aforesaid Rules, petitioner herein requested
the respondent-department for promotion to the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil), but his request was denied on the ground that he has
not done Diploma in Civil Engineering from the Institute recognized
with Himachal Pradesh Government. Feeling aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the impugned action of the respondent-department,
petitioner had approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal by way of T.A. No.2676 of 2015, which was disposed of vide
order dated 30.06.2017 (Annexure P-5). Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal disposed of the afore petition with a direction
.
to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the
petitioner in light of judgments noticed in the order. Pursuant to afore
order passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal,
petitioner made representation to the competent authority with the
of
prayer that he may be promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil)
as per Rule 11(i), but same was rejected, vide office order dated
rt
19.12.2018, on the ground that the person, who has done diploma
from IASE Rajasthan after academic session of 2007-08, is not
eligible for the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).
6. Though no steps, if any, were taken by the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioner in light of of judgments detailed
in the order passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal, but vide notification dated 04.12.2018 issued under the
signatures of Deputy Secretary (I&PH) to the Government of
Himachal Pradesh, it came to be conveyed that Government has
decided to consider all such incumbents for promotion, who were
admitted in the academic session of 2007-08 or prior to that period
and had acquired Diploma as required under the Recruitment &
Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) from Institute
Advance Studies in Education (IASE) Gandhi Vidhya Mandir
Sardarshehar, Rajathan for which IASE was recognized by the
Government of Himachal Pradesh. Vide afore notification,
.
Government also clarified that incumbents admitted after the year
2007-08 cannot be considered for promotion unless their degrees
have been recognized by the concerned/competent authorities
(Annexure P-6). Vide office order dated 02.03.2019 (Annexure P-8)
of
petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), but
benefit of regularization w.e.f 01.01.2013, when post had become
rt
available, never came to be granted/extended to the petitioner.
Petitioner filed representation dated 15.07.2021 (Annexure P-9) for
his promotion from due date i.e. 01.01.2013 with all consequential
benefits, but till date no decision has been taken upon the same and
as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant
proceedings, praying therein for the following main reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-11 i.e.
impugned office order dated 10.11.2023.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents
authorities to promote the petitioner for the post of Junior Engineer
(Civil) with effect from 01.01.2023 instead of 02.03.2019 with all
consequential benefit in the interest of justice and fairly play."
7. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been
highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vijay Bir
Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that in terms of
Recruitment & Promotion Rules, petitioner had become eligible for
promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the year 2013, but
yet at that time, despite there being availability of 15 posts, promotion
.
was denied to the petitioner on the ground that he had not done his
Diploma in Civil Engineering from a recognized Institute. Mr. Singh,
submitted that petitioner's promotion to the post of Junior Engineer
(Civil) was delayed for six years without any fault on his part on the
of
pretext that there is no clarity, if any, with regard to recognition of the
Diploma acquired by the petitioner in the trade of Civil Engineering.
rt
Mr. Singh, further submitted that once Government itself clarified, vide
Notification dated 04.12.2018, that such of the incumbents, who were
admitted in the academic session of 2007-08 or prior to that period
and had acquired Diploma as required under the Recruitment &
Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) from IASE,
shall be eligible for promotion, petitioner ought to have been given
promotion from the date when he had become eligible and the post
had become available. While referring to judgment passed by this
Court in CWP No.3993 of 2021, titled as Jitender Singh Rangta and
Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, along with
connected matter, Mr. Singh, further submitted that posts, which
earlier could only be filled up in relevant year, can be subsequently
filled up by following the procedure laid down in Clause 16.29 of
Chapter 16 of Handbook on Personnel Matters (Vol.1). He further
submitted that in afore case, since petitioners were wrongfully denied
promotion in the relevant year, this Court directed the respondents to
.
hold review DPC for promoting the petitioners therein to the post of
Group Instructor, as per procedure contained in Clause 16.29 of
Handbook on Personnel Matters, by preparing year-wise vacancy
position and consider them for promotion to the post of Group
of
Instructor, from the date, they had attained eligibility and posts
became available. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed
rt
by this Court in CWP No.5315 of 2024, titled as Yog Raj Vs. State of
H.P. and Another, wherein in similar facts and circumstances,
direction came to be issued to the respondents to convene Review
DPC, by following due procedure, as laid down in Clause 16.29 of
Chapter 16 of Handbook on Personnel Matters (Vol.1).
8. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional
Advocate General, while justifying the impugned action of
respondents in granting the promotion to the petitioner w.e.f 2019,
submitted that petitioner herein cannot claim promotion as a matter of
right, because it is well settled that employee though has right to be
considered for promotion, but he cannot claim promotion, as a matter
of right. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,
further argued that since till the year 2018, there was no clarity with
regard to recognition of the Diploma awarded by IASE, case of the
petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) was
rightly not considered. He submitted that clarification with regard to
.
recognition of Diploma obtained by the petitioner from the concerned
institute came to be issued for the first time in the year 2018 and
thereafter, petitioner was immediately promoted to the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil) under 5% quota. While inviting attention of this Court
of
to judgment dated 18.05.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No.5122
of 2020, titled as Vinyak Kashyap Vs. State of H.P. and Another,
rt
Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that
prayer made on behalf of the petitioner through instant petition
deserves to be rejected, being barred by delay and laches. He
submitted that since petitioner remained silent for more than five
years and at no point of time, raised objection with regard to
promotion granted to him in the year 2019, he, being a fence-sitter, is
not entitled to relief, as prayed for, in the instant petition. He further
argued that promotion cannot be claimed from the date of vacancy,
rather, promotion can be claimed from the date, employee concerned
was considered for promotion.
9. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties
and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is
no dispute with regard to entitlement of the petitioner for promotion to
the post of Junior Engineer under 5% quota. It is also not in dispute
that Diploma in Civil Engineering, as required under the Recruitment
& Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), awarded by
.
IASE was recognized for the academic session 2007-08 and for
sessions prior to that period. It is also not in dispute that petitioner had
taken admission in Diploma course in Civil trade during the academic
session of 2007-08 that too with the prior permission of the
of
respondent-department. Vide communication dated 04.12.2018
(Annexure P-6), department itself clarified that after having examined
rt
the matter in consultation with the law department, it has decided to
consider all such incumbents for promotion, who were admitted in the
academic session of 2007-08 or prior to that period and had acquired
Diploma as required under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the
post of Junior Engineer (Civil) from Institute Advance Studies in
Education (IASE) Gandhi Vidhya Mandir Sardarshehar, Rajathan for
which IASE was recognized, meaning thereby, department was fully
convinced at the time of issuance of aforesaid notification that
Diploma awarded by the institute concerned to the candidates
admitted in academic session of 2007-08 or prior to afore period, was
fully recognized for awarding Diploma in Civil trade. Incumbents, who
were admitted after the year 2007-08, could not be considered for
promotion for the reason that after 2007-08 there was some dispute
with regard to recognition of the institute. It is an admitted fact that the
respondents, after considering the Diploma of the petitioner to be valid
in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, granted him promotion to
.
the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the year 2019. Case of the
petitioner is that once vide notification dated 04.12.2018, it was
decided to consider all such incumbents, who were admitted in the
academic session of 2007-08 or prior to that period and had acquired
of
Diploma as required under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, for
promotion the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), petitioner as well as
rt
similarly situate persons ought to have been considered for promotion
against the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f 2013, especially when there
is no dispute that in the year 2013, 15 posts of Junior Engineer were
available. However, respondent-department kept on delaying the
promotion of the petitioner to the post concerned for want of
clarification, which ultimately came to be issued on 04.12.2018.
10. Though respondents, in their reply, have not disputed the
facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, but an attempt has been
made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since
there was no clarity with regard to recognition of IASE from where
petitioner had done his Diploma, he could not be promoted to the post
of Junior Engineer and when the clarification came to be issued,
petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in the year
2019. No doubt, in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, a
candidate desirous of getting promotion to the post of Junior Engineer
under 5% quota should have done Diploma in Civil Engineering from
.
the recognized University/College. Petitioner herein though repeatedly
informed the respondents that he had passed diploma from
recognized institute, but yet for want of clarifications, matter with
regard to his promotion to the post of Junior Engineer remained
of
pending with the department for more than six years. In the year
2018, respondents, while deciding to consider all such incumbents for
rt
promotion, who were admitted in the academic session of 2007-08 or
prior to that period and had acquired Diploma as required under the
Recruitment & Promotion Rules, for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil)
from IASE, further clarified that for afore period IASE was recognized.
Once respondents granted promotion to the petitioner in the year
2019 to the post of Junior Engineer, considering his diploma done
from IASE, they are estopped from rejecting the claim of the petitioner
for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f 2013 on the ground
that Diploma done by the petitioner from IASE was not recognized. No
material worth credence has been placed on record by the
respondents to suggest that prior to the issuance of communication
dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure P-6), some complaint or other material
was available with them suggestive of the fact that IASE was not a
recognized Institute for awarding Diploma in Civil Engineering. If it is
so, petitioner, who admittedly had become eligible for promotion to the
post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in terms of Recruitment & Promotion
.
Rules, is well within his right to claim promotion from the year 2013,
when admittedly 15 posts of Junior Engineer were lying vacant.
11. Petitioner, while filing rejoinder to the reply filed by the
respondents, has categorically stated that in the year 2014, 15 posts
of
of Junior Engineer were lying vacant in the department and petitioner,
being at serial No.1 in his cadre i.e. Surveyor, was eligible to be
rt
considered against the post reserved under 5% quota and such plea
of him has not been refuted by the respondents by way of filing sur-
rejoinder or counter, as such, this Court presumes the same to be
correct. Even otherwise, impugned order dated 10.11.2023, whereby
representation having been filed by the petitioner, in terms of
judgment dated 19.09.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No.5061 of
2023, titled as Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
Ors., came to be decided, nowhere suggests that in the year 2013,
post of Junior Engineer (Civil) against which petitioner could be
promoted was not available, rather representation has been rejected
for want of clarification with regard to recognition of the institute from
where petitioner had done Diploma.
12. Though at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional
Advocate General, vehemently argued that in any eventuality,
petitioner could not be considered for promotion in the year 2013,
against the vacancy, rather promotion could only be given from the
.
prospective date, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with the
aforesaid submission of Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate
General.
13. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that since he was
of
eligible for promotion against the post in question in the year 2013
and at relevant time, 15 posts were also available, he should have
rt
been promoted from that date, but definitely not from the date of
convening of Departmental Promotion Committee. At this stage, it
would be apt to take note of Clause 16.29 of Chapter 16 of Handbook
on Personnel Matters (Vol.1), which reads as under:
"16.29 Cases where the DPC could not be held any year even
though some vacancies arose during that year
(a) Preparation of year wise select lists.
It has been decided that where the DPC could not be held in any
year even though some vacancies arose during that year, the DPC
that meets thereafter should follow the following procedure:-
(i) Determine the actual number of regular vacancies that
arose in each of the previous year/years immediately
preceding and the actual number of regular vacancies
proposed to be filled in the current year separately.
(ii) Consider in respect of each year those officers only who
would be within the field of choice with reference to the
vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year
onwards.
(iii) Prepare a consolidated select list separately for each of
the years starting with the earliest year onwards including
the names of officers of reserved categories.
(iv) Prepare a consolidated select list by placing the select
.
list of the earlier year above the one for the next and so on.
The above decision is operative with effect from 23rd June, 1984,
i.e. the date on which the instructions were issued. It is clarified that
past cases already decided will not be reopened.
(H.P. Government Department of Personnel letter No. PER(AP-II) A
(1)-1/80-III, dated 23rd June, 1984-Annexure -16.24)."
of
14. Careful perusal of aforesaid instructions reveals that
where DPC could not be held in any particular year despite there
rt
being availability of vacancies, promotion would be granted to the
eligible candidates after determining the actual number of regular
vacancies that arose in each of the previous year/years immediately
preceding and the actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be
filled in the current year separately. As per aforesaid procedure,
Departmental Promotion Committee would consider vacancies of
each year and shall prepare a consolidated list separately for each of
the year starting from the earliest year onward including the names of
the officers of the reserved categories.
15. Since specific plea raised by the petitioner with regard to
availability of 15 posts in the year 2013 has not been denied by the
respondents in their reply, Mr. Vijay Bir Singh, learned counsel
representing the petitioner, is right in contending that petitioner, ought
to have been considered for promotion against the vacancy in the
year 2013. At this juncture, this Court finds it necessary to take note of
relevant part of Clauses 16.6 and 16.7 of Handbook on Personnel
.
Matters (Vol.I), which provides specific guidance on the subject of
timely convening of Departmental Promotion Committee and the duty
of the department to ensure that no eligible candidate is deprived of
promotion, which reads as under:
of
"16.6 Frequency at which D.P.C. should meet
The D.P.C. should be convened at regular annual intervals to draw
panels which could be utilized for making promotions against the
vacancies occurring during the course of a year. It has been
rt
observed that Departments do not convene meetings of the D.P.Cs.
annually for various reasons even though eligible officers of the
lower grade were available and the vacanci.es in the higher grade
were also available for their promotion. This is often due to non-
finalization of the seniority list of officers at the lower grade which
forms the field of consideration. Sometimes, meetings of the D.P.C.
are also not convened annually under the impression that a panel,
prepared by a D. P. C. for filling "Selection" posts could be kept
operative for a period of one year and six months and that,
therefore, action to convene the next meeting of the Departmental
promotion Committee need be initiated only after the expiry of that
period. As delay in convening the D.P.C, meeting results not only in
financial loss to the concerned officers due to delay in their
promotion to the next higher grade but also affects them adversely
in their future career in as much as their promotion to the next
higher grade is also delayed, it is necessary that the D.P.C. meeting
should be convened at regular intervals as indicated above. The
requirement of convening annual meetings of the DPC should only
be dispensed with after a certificate is issued by the respective
appointing authority to the effect that there no vacancies are to be
filled up by way of promotion or no officers/officials are due/eligible
for confirmation during the year, in question.
16.7 Time-schedule for holding meetings of D.P.C.
The instructions contained in H.P. Govt. Deptt. of Personnel letter
No. 1-13 /73-DP (A-II) dated 27-4-1993 (Annexure 16.18) provide
.
that the time schedule for hording of regular Departmental
Promotion Committee will be during the month of April-May. The
subsequent instructions issued vide letter. No. 1-13/75-DP (AP-II)
dared 14-2-1984 (Annexure 16.22) provided that meeting of the
Departmental Promotion Committee may be held once a year in the
month of April every year as far as possible. The latest instructions
of
contained in letter No. 1-13/75-DP(A-II) dated 6-9-1984 and letter
No. Per(AP-II)B(3)-1/94 dated 16-11-1994 (Annexures 16.25 and
16.55) provide that meetings of the Departmental Promotion
Committees for making promotions should be held during the first
rt
quarter of the financial year as far as possible for all the existing and
anticipated vacancies. For unanticipated vacancies, fresh meetings
of the Departmental Promotion Committees for making promotions
should be held during the course of the year within three months
from the date of creation of the posts. In so far as the meetings of
the DPC for promotion to the posts falling within the purview of the
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission are concerned, the
time schedule for such meetings may be spread over the month
from April to December every year. Particulars of vacancies which
are likely to occur during the next twelve months may also be
furnished to the Commission by the end of the month of January
every year so that the time schedule for holding meetings of the
DPCs in respect of each department could be determined by the
Commission keeping in view the, existing vacancies and the
vacancies likely to occur in the Department. This will enable the
Commission to arrange meetings of the DPC well in time."
16. In the case at hand, though petitioner was eligible for
promotion in the year 2013, but yet department failed to convene DPC
for six years, despite there being availability of clear cut vacancies,
thereby violating not only the statutory rules, but also the principles
enshrined in the Handbook on Personnel Matters, which are binding
.
administrative instructions having the force of law in service matter.
Otherwise also, it is well established principle in service jurisprudence
that once a vacancy arises in the promotional post, it becomes
incumbent upon the appointing authority to take expeditious steps to
of
convene the Departmental Promotion Committee for considering all
eligible candidates.
17.
rt
The failure of the respondent-department in convening
timely DPC has led to the deprivation of the petitioner from promotion,
despite his continued eligibility under Recruitment & Promotion Rules.
Such dereliction on the part of the authorities not only constitutes
administrative negligence, but also defeats the legitimate expectation
of the petitioner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Hemraj Singh
Chauhan, 2010 (4) SCC 290, wherein it has been categorically held
that incumbents shall not suffer due to the slackness or lethargic
attitude of the administration and that delay in holding DPCs resulting
in loss of promotional opportunity to eligible employees, amounts to
grave injustice. Relevant part of afore judgment, reads as under:
"38. It is an accepted legal position that the right of eligible
employees to be considered for promotion is virtually a part of their
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution.
The guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under
Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14
of the Constitution.
39. In The Manager, Government Branch Press and Anr. v. D.B.
.
Belliappa - (1979) 1 SCC 477, a three judge Bench of this Court in
relation to service dispute, may be in a different context, held that
the essence of guarantee epitomised under Articles 14 and 16 is
"fairness founded on reason" (See para 24 page 486).
40. It is, therefore, clear that legitimate expectations of the
respondents of being considered for promotion has been defeated
of
by the acts of the Government and if not of the Central Government,
certainly the unreasonable in-action on the part of the Government
of State of U.P. stood in the way of the respondents' chances of
rt
promotion from being fairly considered when it is due for such
consideration and delay has made them ineligible for such
consideration. Now the question which is weighing on the
conscience of this Court is how to fairly resolve this controversy."
18. Though at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Advocate
General, placed reliance upon the judgment dated 17.05.2014 passed
by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.9271 of 2013, titled as
Prakash Chand Vs. State of H.P. and Another, along with other
connected matter, but such reliance upon the aforesaid judgment is
wholly misplaced. If the aforesaid judgment is read in its entirety, it
clearly provides that normal rule of law is that nobody can be
promoted from a retrospective effect, except when there exist facts,
which necessitate so, or there is a rule, which permits so. In the case
at hand, as has been discussed in detail, petitioner became eligible
for promotion in the year 2013, but despite there being availability of
15 posts, respondents for no cogent and convincing reason, failed to
convene Departmental Promotion Committee, till the year 2019. In
.
afore judgment, it has been categorically held that in case due to
administrative reason, DPC could not be held in a year, then the
person cannot claim retrospective promotion in the absence of mala
fides, since mala fide taints every act requiring a person wronged to
of
be placed in the position but for the mala fides or tainted exercise of
power. There cannot be any quarrel with aforesaid proposition of law
rt
laid down by Division Bench of this Court, rather, same is required to
be religiously followed. However, in the instant case, no cogent and
convincing reason has been placed on record, for not convening the
DPC, save and except that clarification for first time with regard to
recognition of diploma awarded by IASE, came to be issued in the
year 2008, which contention raised by respondent-State, deserves
outright rejection, for the reason that prior to passing of the aforesaid
judgment, there were no instructions or rules, if any, of respondent-
State, specifically prescribing therein that Diploma awarded by IASE
shall not be recognized, rather, Recruitment & Promotion Rules, if
perused for the post in question in their entirety, talk about the
Diploma issued by recognized University. It is none of the case of the
respondents that Diploma awarded in favour of the petitioner on
account of his having taken admission during the academic session of
2007-08 is not recognized. If it is so, there was otherwise no occasion,
if any, for the respondents not to convene DPC in the year 2013.
.
Moreover, in the case at hand, Clauses 16.6 and 16.7 of Handbook
on Personnel Matters, as taken note hereinabove, specifically provide
for convening DPC twice a year, so that rightful claim of a person,
entitled for promotion, is not defeated on account of non-convening of
of
DPC.
19. At this juncture, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional
rt
Advocate General, also placed reliance upon judgment passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others Vs. N.C. Murali
and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 575, to contend that unless there is a
specific rule, entitling applicants to receive promotion from the date of
occurrence of vacancy, right of promotion does not crystallize on the
date of vacancy and promotion is to be extended, on the date it is
actually effected, however, after having perused aforesaid judgment in
its entirety, this Court finds no application of the same in the case at
hand. In aforesaid judgment, precisely, it has been held that the right
of promotion does not crystallize on the date of occurrence of vacancy
and the promotion is to be extended on the date, when it is actually
effected, unless there is specific rule entitling the applicants to receive
promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancy. As noted
hereinabove, Clauses 16.6 and 16.7 of the Handbook on Personnel
Matters (Volume I) provide for convening of the Departmental
Promotion Committee twice a year. The very purpose and object of
.
afore Clauses is that vacancy, if any, in relevant year is filled in the
same year, so that person eligible in that particular year, is not
subsequently deprived of promotion, on account of the fact that DPC
could not be convened earlier.
of
20. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Advocate General, further
placed reliance upon judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this
rt
Court in Ramesh Kumar Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and Another,
CWP No.3256 of 2025, decided on 09.04.2025, to state that there is
no absolute right to promotion itself. Promotion become effective upon
assumption of duties on promotional post and not on date of
occurrence of vacancy or recommendation for promotion. However,
aforesaid judgment has no application in the case at hand for the
reason that petitioner in that case, before approaching competent
Court of law, stood superannuated, however, in the instant case,
petitioner was firstly denied promotion in the year 2013, despite there
being availability of vacancy on the ground that he does not possess
requisite qualification, but subsequently in the year 2019, on the basis
of same qualification, he was granted promotion. Moreover, petitioner
is still in service and in case prayer made on his behalf for considering
his case from retrospective date is not considered, he would continue
to suffer, till his superannuation.
.
21. Judgment passed by this Court in Vinyak Kashyap
(supra) pressed into service by learned Additional Advocate General
cannot be said to have any application in the case at hand for the
reason that in afore case, petitioner, after having accepted promotion,
of
remained silent for more than four years. However, in the instant
case, petitioner has been approaching the competent Court of law
rt
from the very beginning i.e. from the day he had become eligible for
promotion. Initially, petitioner approached erstwhile HP Administrative
Tribunal by way of Original Application/T.A. No.2676 of 2015, which
came to be disposed of vide order dated 30.06.2017 with a direction
to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of
judgments detailed therein, but nothing was done. Repeatedly
petitioner filed representations, praying therein to grant him promotion
to the post in question w.e.f 2013, but same were rejected for totally
unjustifiable reasons. In view of above, it cannot be said that petitioner
is a fence-sitter, as such, he is not entitled to relief, as prayed for.
22. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit
in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned
order dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure P-11) is quashed and set-aside.
Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of Junior Engineer from due date, i.e. from the
year 2013, by convening Review Departmental Promotion Committee,
.
by following procedure, as laid down in Clause 16.29 of Chapter 16 of
Handbook on Personnel Matters (Vol.1). Since petitioner has not
worked against the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f 2013 to 2019, he
shall be entitled to notional benefits only along with seniority, but not
of
monetary benefits. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful
claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be
rt
done by the respondents expeditiously, preferably, within a period of
two months from today. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed
of.
p`
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
November 28, 2025
(Sunil)
