HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 427 of 2001. Decided on: 7.8.2008. Y.D. Sharma ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Rajneesh Maniktala, Advocate. For respondents No.1 and 2: Mr.R.M. Bisht and Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. Per V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal (here-in-after referred to as the learned Tribunal), dated 12.1.2001, vide which the Original Application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the learned Tribunal. It was alleged that the petitioner was working as Lecturer since 1977 and was presently working as Head of Department in Electrical Engineering in Government Polytechnic, Hamirpur. He alleged that he was promoted against the post of Head of Department in Electrical Engineering on __________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the regular incumbent is appointed. The petitioner alleged that he had been performing the duties of Head of Department to the satisfaction of his seniors. A post of Head of Department in Electrical Division fell vacant and a DPC met on 17.11.1992 for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion as Head of Department and he was thereafter appointed as Head of Department vide notification, dated 10.12.1992, in the regular scale. He alleged that he should have been given seniority w.e.f. 7.10.1986 when he was initially appointed to the post as Head of Department and he also claimed that he is entitled to the benefit of seniority since he has been working on ad basis since 1986 continuously without there being any interruption. In the reply filed by the respondents, they pleaded that the petitioner had been working as Head of Department since October, 1986, but it was on ad hoc basis and there was no post of Head of Department vacant in Electrical Engineering against which he could be made regular. The post fell vacant on 15.2.1992 and thereafter, a DPC was constituted and the petitioner was appointed w.e.f. 10.12.1992 on regular basis. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. This fact is not disputed that the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 7.10.1986 since there was no regular post of Head of Department in Electrical Engineering vacant at the relevant time, since one of the officer had been on deputation. The regular post fell vacant in February, 1992 and thereafter a DPC was constituted and the petitioner was promoted w.e.f. 10.12.1992. - 3 - During the course of arguments, it was sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the DPC was constituted late and accordingly the petitioner suffered and though the post was vacant in the month of February, 1992, he was only promoted in the month of December, 1992. We have gone through the original application filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal and there are no specific allegations of any bias on the part of the respondents or any officer constituting the DPC late just to avoid the appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, this plea is not open to be urged by the petitioner in the absence of specific allegations and the persons constituting the DPC having been made a party to the application filed before the learned Tribunal. During the course of arguments, we have also been informed that the petitioner was getting the regular scale as that of Head of Department since his promotion in October, 1986 and he has not suffered any financial loss on that count. The only point to be considered was that in case the petitioner had been promoted earlier on regular basis and the post of Principal fell vacant, he could have been considered for posting as Principal. However, he had been promoted at the earliest when the regular vacancy arose and it cannot be said that on the day the officer retires, the next incumbent should be appointed immediately thereafter. It takes time for the constitution of a DPC and for the DPC to make recommendation. In the present case, the vacancy arose in February, 1992 and in December, 1992, the petitioner was also appointed on regular basis and he had received all the financial benefits which were attached to the post of Head of Department. In so far as the question that if he had been promoted earlier he would have been considered for the post of Principal is concerned, the petitioner has already retired, as informed, and no such notional promotion can be made or - 4 - direction can be given to create a post of Principal and the petitioner be considered for the same. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage since he has retired and there is no merit in the petition, which is dismissed accordingly. There are no orders as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. August 7, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.