Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Dinesh Kumar And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 15 June, 2023
Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 3852 of 2023
Decided on : 15.06.2023
.
Shri Dinesh Kumar and others ....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate
with M/s Sanjeev Sood and Het
Ram Thakur, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General with M/s Navlesh Verma,
Rakesh Dhaulta and Pranay
Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate
Generals and M/s Gautam Sood
and Arsh Rattan, Deputy
Advocate Generals.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Arsh Rattan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2) Heard both sides.
3) It is not in dispute that Trained Graduate Teachers have two avenues of promotion, i.e. (i) to the post of Lecturer subject to seniority coupled with eligibility for the said post and (ii) to the post of Head Master on the basis of seniority. The posts of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:17 :::CIS 2Head Master as well as Lecturer are the feeder categories to the post of Principal.
4) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners, who .
had been promoted on 18.7.2012 as Lecturers in Government Senior Secondary Schools, seeking promotion as Head Masters from the cadre of TGTs on the pretext that the respondents did not seek option from them before promoting them as Lecturers from the post of TGTs, and they should now be promoted as Head Masters instead.
5) Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by this Court, in Vinod Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (CWP No. 1545 of 2011 a/w CWP No. 9181 of 2011 and CWP No. 814 of 2012), dt. 05.07.2012 and also the decision in Neelam Kaushal vs. State of H.P. and others (CWP-T No. 14932 of 2008), dt. 26.07.2010.
6) It is the contention of the petitioners that in these two decisions, this Court had directed that before making any promotion to the post of Lecturers or Head Masters, an option should be sought from the employees, but at the time when the petitioners were promoted as Lecturers from the post of TGTs vide order dt. 18.07.2012 w.e.f. 25.06.2009, such option had not been sought from them.
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:17 :::CIS 37) They contend that since it was the duty of the respondents to seek an option from the petitioners, and since the respondents have violated the above orders, the petitioners .
should now be allowed to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Master from the date their junior have been promoted with all consequential benefits like arrears of salary alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum and seniority.
8) We have noted the contentions of petitioners.
9) When the petitioners were promoted from the post of TGT to the post of Lecturer vide office order dt. 18.07.2012 w.e.f.
25.06.2009, no doubt, options were not sought from them as to whether they would like to be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer or to the post of Head Master.
10) But the petitioners, at no point of time after 18.07.2012 till date, complained of denial of option to them and happily worked as Lecturers on which post they had been promoted on 18.07.2012 w.e.f. 25.06.2009.
11) Thus, for a period of almost 11 years, they have acquiescence in the action of the respondents in denying them an option.
They have not chosen to exercise their right to seek an option immediately after their promotion to the post of Lecturer happened on 18.07.2012.
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:17 :::CIS 412) In our opinion, the delay on the part of the petitioners in .
demanding an option between 18.07.2012 and now cannot be ignored, and their acquiescence for such a long time also cannot be overlooked.
13) Time and again, Supreme Court of India has held that delay in approaching the Court for appropriate relief should disentitle parties to relief. ( Union of India v. N.Murugesan2)
14) In view of aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition and grant relief to the petitioners.
15) Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence on the part of the petitioners.
16) Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. No cost.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
Chief Justice
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
June 15, 2023 Judge
(narender)
2
(2022) 2 SCC 25
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2023 20:31:17 :::CIS