IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 1000 of 2007-D. Decided on: 23.12.2011. ___________________________________________ Sanjay Kumar Sood son of Shri Balak Ram Sood, resident of Quarter No.6, S.D. Senior Secondary School, Girls Wing, below D.C. Office, Ram Bazaar, Shimla-171 001, presently working as Clerk in S.D. Senior Secondary School, Ganj Bazaar, Shimla, H.P. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla–171 002. 2. Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla – 171 002. 3. S.D. Senioor School, Shimla through its President, Ganj Bazaar, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner was appointed as Clerk with respondent No.3-School on 26.2.1996. The respondent No.3- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - School is getting grant-in-aid as per Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1997. A conscious decision has been taken by the respondent-State on 24.5.2000 (Annexure P-2) to the following effect:- “ …… (b) In the Private 95% aided Senior Secondary Schools one post of Senior Assistant and one post of Superintendent Grade-II are admissible. The persons working against these posts will be promoted in accordance with the provisions of rules, as are applicable in the Govt. Institutions with the approval of DEO/DE, after holding the DPC under the rules and subject to the eligibility.” 2. In sequel to Annexure P-2, dated 24.5.2000, the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 24.9.2001 and the petitioner was found suitable for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. The departmental nominee was also one of the members of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Management of the school sent the case of the petitioner for approval vide Annexure P-6, dated 11.1.2002, however, the same has been rejected by the second respondent vide Annexure P-7, dated 31.10.2005. The stand of the respondent-State is that the instructions dated 24.5.2000 are in contravention of the Grant-in-Aid Rules. However, the fact of the matter is that for respondent No.3-school, three posts have already been approved and as per letter dated 24.5.2000 one post of Senior Assistant and one post of Superintendent Grade-II is admissible. The case of the petitioner for - 3 - promotion as Junior Assistant has been considered against these posts. These instructions are supplementary to the Grant-in-Aid Rules. It is always permissible to supplement the rules by issuing executive instructions. Thus, the decision taken by the respondent-State is contrary to instructions dated 24.5.2000. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-7, dated 31.10.2005 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to accord necessary approval for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant on the basis of recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 24.9.2001, with all the consequential benefits. Needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the competent authority. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice R.B. Misra), Judge. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 23, 2011. (sck).