Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 06Th March vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 6 March, 2026
2026:HHC:6191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWPOA No.248 of 2019
Decided on: 06th March, 2026
.
__________________________________________________________________
Sanjeev Gautam ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate.
rt For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State.
Respondent No.3 ex-parte.
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i) That this application may kindly be allowed and the impugned seniority list of Head of Department be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to promote the applicant for the Post of Head of Department (Pharmacy) w.e.f 3.3.1997 with all consequential benefits.
ii) That the entire record pertaining to the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 2
case be summoned.
iii) That the respondents may be burdened with the cost of this original application throughout.
.
iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, key facts for adjudication of the claim are that the petitioner was of appointed as Lecturer Pharmacy on 03.03.1992. The next rt promotional post was Head of Department Pharmacy.
3. As per Recruitment & Promotion Rules (Annexure-
I) appended with the reply, the post of Head of Department Pharmacy in the Department of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, H.P. can be filled up from amongst Lecturers in Pharmacy having 5 years' experience as Lecturer, failing which, by direct recruitment.
4. The petitioner has averred in the petition that two posts of Head of Department, Pharmacy fell vacant with the respondents in the year 1991 and these posts were advertised to be filled up from General and Ex-servicemen ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 3 Category, respectively and two persons were appointed.
However, only one person joined and the second post .
remained unfilled. Though one person Shri Darshan Singh from the waiting list joined for a week but later on he abandoned the post. The post was again re-advertised, but the same could not be filled up.
of
5. The petitioner after becoming eligible to hold the post of rt Head of Department, Pharmacy, made a representation on 03.03.1997, when the post was lying vacant. However, this post was withdrawn from the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on 06.08.1997 (wrongly mentioned as 26.11.1997 in the petition), whereas the petitioner became eligible for the post in question on 03.03.1997.
6. It has been averred in the petition that one post of Head of Department, Electronics Engineering (wrongly mentioned as Head of Department, Electronics) was vacant with the respondents and it was advertised simultaneously ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 4 along with the post of Pharmacy. The post of Head of Department, Electronics Engineering was also not filled up .
due to non-eligible candidate. However, the said post of Head of Department, Electronics Engineering was withdrawn from the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on 03.05.1995 (wrongly mentioned as 05.06.1995 in the petition) of and one Sunil Kumar was promoted, though he was not rt eligible for the post in question as he had deficient of two years qualifying service as Lecturer. The same procedure was not followed in the case of the petitioner. The respondents convened the DPC and respondent No.3 was promoted as Head of Department, Electronics Engineering on 19.08.1997 (wrongly mentioned as 29.06.1997 in the petition), whereas the petitioner, who became eligible on 03.03.1997, was promoted on 26.11.1997 by holding DPC at a later date. By not holding DPC immediately after the petitioner's becoming eligible to hold the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy, has caused injustice to him.
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 57. Respondent No.3 was shown senior in the tentative list of Head of Departments circulated by the .
respondents and the petitioner aggrieved by the said seniority list had preferred the objections on 19.03.2002 (Annexure A-2), but without considering the objections/representation of the petitioner, respondents of finalized the seniority list of Heads of Departments (Annexure rt A-3) as it stood on 31.12.2001, wherein the petitioner was shown at Sr. No.8, whereas respondent No.3 was shown at Sr. No.7.
8. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that once the post of Head of Department Pharmacy was lying vacant since 1992 and the petitioner became eligible on 03.03.1997, action on the part of the respondents to promote him after respondent No.3 is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the action on the part of the respondents in withdrawing the post of Head of Department, Electronics Engineering at an early date and delaying the ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 6 process of holding the DPC for the post of Head of Department Pharmacy, is bad.
.
9. The respondents have filed reply to the petition and stated that according to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy, the post was to be filled up 100% by promotion, failing which by direct of recruitment. Due to the non-availability of eligible rt incumbents, the requisition was sent to the H.P. Public Service Commission on 13.09.1991 along with other Heads of Department posts i.e. Head of Department Electronics Engineering & Head of Department Commercial & Secretarial Practice. The Department received recommendations of Sh. A.K. Ahuja and Shri Ram Chandra Roy from the H.P. Public Service Commission for the two posts of Head of Department, Pharmacy. Sh. Ram Chandra Roy did not accept the offer of appointment and his appointment offer was cancelled on 12.10.1992 and the H.P. Public Service Commission recommended another candidate Sh. Darshan Singh in place ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 7 of Sh. Ram Chandra Roy from the panel on 14.12.1992. But due to stay order passed on 20.11.1992 by this Court in CWP .
No.880 of 1992 titled Sh. D.K. Gautam vs. State of H.P. and others, respondents No.1 and 2 were restrained from making any appointment or promotion to the posts of Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Head of Departments and Principals in of Polytechnics in Himachal Pradesh till further orders. Due to rt this, the appointment letter could not be issued to Sh.
Darshan Singh as Head of Department, Pharmacy. The stay orders were vacated on 23.02.1995 and after that appointment letter was issued to Sh. Darshan Singh, but he refused to accept the same. This appointment offer was cancelled on 08.08.1995. After that Department had again requested the H.P. Public Service Commission to recommend a suitable candidate again in place of Sh. Darshan Singh. The H.P. Public Service Commission informed the respondents that the present panel has been cancelled and now this post is being re-advertised. After that the H.P. Public Service ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 8 Commission also informed on 25.06.1997 (Annexure-IV) that the post was re-advertised twice, but since no suitable .
candidate was available, therefore, this post is being re-
advertised for third time. This time, the respondents informed the H.P. Public Service Commission on 06.08.1997 that the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy may not be of re-advertised as the eligible candidate was now available in rt the Department to fill up the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy by promotion. Thereafter, the process was started and the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 18.11.1997 and the DPC recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy. Accordingly, the promotion order was issued to the petitioner on 26.11.1997 and the petitioner joined his duties as Head of Department on 26.11.1997 itself. The petitioner never represented against this promotion order because he was rightly promoted under the Rules. It is further averred in the reply that no promotion takes place ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 9 from a retrospective date.
10. So far the appointment of respondent No.3 on the .
post of Head of Department Electronics Engineering is concerned, it is having a separate cadre like other disciplines i.e. Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering etc. and has its own promotion channel. One of post of Head of Department Electronics Engineering was rt advertised twice by the H.P. Public Service Commission, but no suitable candidate was available and the post was withdrawn from the H.P. Public Service Commission on 03.05.1995 and the DPC was convened on 02.08.1997 which recommended respondent No.3 for the post of Head of Department Electronics Engineering and thereafter he has been promoted as Head of Department Electronics Engineering.
11. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents.
12. I have heard Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, learned ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 10 counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and also perused the case file carefully.
.
13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer Pharmacy on 03.03.1992. Even as per the pleadings of the petitioner, the post of Head of Department Pharmacy, which is a promotional post from the of category of Lecturer Pharmacy, was lying vacant since 1991 rt even when the petitioner had not joined the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the respondents had taken steps to fill up the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy even prior to the joining of the petitioner, since the requisition was sent to the H.P. Public Service Commission on 13.09.1991 along with other Head of Department posts i.e. Head of Department Electronics Engineering & Head of Department Commercial & Secretarial Practice. It is also not in dispute that despite taking steps to fill up the post even before the petitioner became eligible, no suitable candidate was available and when the H.P. Public Service Commission ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 11 informed the respondents on 25.06.1997 that the post was being re-advertised a third time, the respondents had .
informed the H.P. Public Service Commission on 06.08.1997 that the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy, may not be advertised, since an eligible candidate was now available in the Department. The petitioner became eligible after of completion of 5 years' of service on the post of Lecturer rt Pharmacy on 03.03.1997.
14. The respondents after writing to the H.P. Public Service Commission had initiated the process to fill up the post of Head of Pharmacy and the meeting of the Departmental Promotional Committee was convened on 18.11.1997 and after the receipt of the recommendations, wherein the name of the petitioner was recommended for the promotion to the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy, promotion orders were issued on 26.11.1997 and the petitioner joined on that day itself.
15. So far as the private respondent is concerned, in ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 12 the Head of Department Electronics Engineering, the respondents had also taken the steps to fill up the post and .
had requested the H.P. Public Service Commission to recommend a suitable candidate and the H.P. Public Service Commission had advertised the post twice but the said post was withdrawn on 03.05.1995 and thereafter the meeting of of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened and rt the name of the private respondent was recommended on 02.08.1997 and was offered the appointment vide notification dated 13.08.1997 and he joined the duties on 19.08.1997.
16. From the facts mentioned above, it cannot be said that there was deliberate delay on the part of the respondents to convene the DPC in the case of the petitioner.
In the case of the private respondent, the post was withdrawn on 03.05.1995 and in the case of the petitioner when the H.P. Public Service Commission was going to re-
advertise the post for the third time, the samewas withdrawn on 06.08.1997. After withdrawing the post from the H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 13 Public Service Commission, the respondents had taken immediate steps to convene the DPC and after receipt of the .
recommendation dated 18.11.1997, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head of Department Pharmacy on 26.11.1997, who joined on the same date.
17. Admittedly, respondent No.3 was promoted to the of post of Head of Department, Electronics and Engineering on rt 13.08.1997, whereas the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy on 26.11.1997. Since respondent No.3 had been promoted earlier than the petitioner, respondents had rightly issued the seniority list, wherein the name of the private respondent figures at Sr. No.7 and that of the petitioner at Sr. No.8 at page 17 of the paper book.
18. It is settled law that the promotion to a post cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The candidate has only a right of consideration to the post. In the present case, as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 14 was considered and offered appointment to the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy, immediately after withdrawing the .
post. Once the private respondent has been promoted earlier than the petitioner, he definitely is entitled to be assigned seniority above the petitioner.
19. From the perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that of the petitioner had never raked up the issue when he was rt promoted to the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy, in the year 1997, and it is only after issuance of the final seniority list that the petitioner had raked up the issue, in the year 2002, when the final seniority list of Heads of Departments/Deputy Directors (T&P) was issued on 18.04.2002.
20. The respondents had taken reasonable time to convene the DPC to fill up the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy and the petitioner had become eligible only on 03.03.1997 and thus no illegality can be found with the actions of the respondents either to promote the petitioner to ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS 15 the post of Head of Department, Pharmacy after respondent No.3 nor can any illegality be found with the seniority .
assigned to him since he was promoted after respondent No.3.
21. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, no of orders as to costs.
22. rt Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
06th March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )
(ankit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2026 20:32:02 :::CIS