Himachal Pradesh High Court
_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 3 September, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.169 of 2024
Date of Decision: 2.9.2025
_______________________________________________________
Vidya Singh Negi and Ors. .......Petitioners
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General
and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
r General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State.
Mr. Aditya Chouhan, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
__________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Petitioners herein, who are aggrieved of order dated
30.11.2023 (Annexure P-9), whereby prayer made by them for
promotion to the post of Principal against those incumbents who have
not joined on their placement as Principal (School Cadre) from the
date they have forgone their promotion/placement and from the date
vacancies were available in the category of Scheduled Tribes, came
to be rejected, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings
praying therein following reliefs:
"a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be
issued directing the respondents to promote the petitioners as
Principals (School Cadre) from the date when some of the
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Lecturers had forgone their promotions/placements and
vacancies fall vacant in the category of Scheduled Tribes with
all consequential benefits as still there are posts of Principals
(School Cadre) are lying vacant in the ST category in different
.
schools.
b) That the respondents may be directed to give placement to
the petitioners as they are fully eligible to be placed as
Principal."
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been
highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Shashi Kiran,
learned counsel for the petitioner is that bare perusal of order dated
30.11.2023, whereby representations having been filed by the
petitioner, came to be rejected, nowhere suggests any application of
mind, rather respondents without verifying factum with regard to
pending litigation, if any, proceeded to reject the representations filed
by the petitioners. She further argued that though as Recruitment &
Promotion Rules, post of Principal, being Class-I Gazetted, is to be
filled up by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, but
requisition is to be sent by the department. If it is so, no wrong, if any,
can be said to have be committed by the Himachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission in as much as not granting promotions to the
petitioners as well as similarly situate persons.
3. Having carefully perused order dated 30.11.2023,
thereby rejecting representations of the petitioners this Court is
persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that
authority concerned has acted in hot haste manner. There is no
discussion that why petitioners herein cannot be promoted as
Principal against such incumbents, who have not joined as Principal
.
School Cadre, from the date they have forgone their promotion/
placement. Interestingly reply filed by the respondents, if read in
entirety, clearly suggests that there is no pending litigation.
4. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of paras 2 and 3
of the reply, which read as under:
2. That this case was listed before the Hon'ble Court on
04.01.2024 and on this day the Hon'ble Court passed the
following directions:
"3. The respondents-State are directed to deal with the
following points:-
(i) Whether any litigation, in which the interim orders
have been passed, not to make promotions to the
post of Principal [School Cadre], exists as on day or
not?
(ii) In case, any litigation, there is no stay, qua
promotions then, whether the respondents can
resort to backdoor method placement(s), when the
Recruitment and Promotion Rules provide for filling
posts of Principal [School Cadre] by promotion from
Headmasters: Lecturers in ratio of 50:50?
4. Let these aspects be clarified in the reply."
3. That with regard to queries raised by the Hon'ble Court vide
para 3 (i) of the orders passed on 04.01.2024, the following is
submitted:
(i) That presently there is no litigation pending in
which the interim orders have been passed not to
make promotions to the post of Principal (School
Cadre)
(ii) That earlier the cases related to seniority dispute
between direct and adhoc lecturers and
.
service/seniority benefits to the Ex-Serviceman
were pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and due to pendency of these cases the regular
promotion could not be made by the Department for
a long time. However, for smooth running of work
and time being arrangements the placements were
made purely on the basis of tentative seniority
subject to the fitment at the time of DPC. However,
all the parameters will be considered while
regularizing these placements. Department of
Personnel and Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission shall also be consulted."
5. Neither litigation, if any, is pending on account of which
prayer of the petitioners cannot be considered nor there is any stay
qua the promotion. Admittedly, petitioners herein being below in
seniority cannot straightaway claim promotion to the post of Principal
but their precise prayer in the representation is that they may be
promoted against the post of Principal, which have not been filled up
on account of non-joining of some of the lecturers, who have forgone
their promotion.
6. Having taken note of precise grouse of the petitioner vis-
à-vis factual matrix, as detailed herein above, this Court is persuaded
to conclude that authority below, while deciding the representation of
the petitioners, has not bothered to ascertain whether on account of
non-joining of some of the eligible candidates against the post of the
Principals, petitioners herein, who are otherwise in line of promotion,
can be granted promotion or not, rather on the grounds, which are
.
otherwise non-existent, has proceeded to reject their representation.
Impugned order dated 30.11.2023, being totally non-speaking
deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is
allowed and order dated 30.11.2023, is quashed and set-aside with
further direction to the respondents to decide the case/representation
of the petitioner afresh taking note of observations made herein above
as well as factum that number of teachers have been promoted
recently to the post of Principal by way of placement. Needful in
terms of instant order shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within
four weeks. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of
alongwith pending applications, if any.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
September 2, 2025
manjit
