IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 13201 of 2008 with CWP No. 2509 of 2010. Date of Decision : September 20, 2010 1. CWP(T) No. 13201 of 2008 Sh. Prem Vaid and another Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents 2. CWP No. 2509 of 2010 Sh. Rattan Lal Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. CWP(T) No. 13201 of 2008 For the petitioners : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. H. K. Paul, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Mr. Lokendar Thakur, Advocate, for the proposed respondents No. 4 and 5. CWP No. 2509 of 2010 For the petitioner : Mr. H. K. Paul, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General for respondent No. 1. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate, for the proposed respondent No. 3. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) CWP(T) No. 13201 of 2008 The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 20.1.2007, Annexure A-14 may be quashed and set aside. (i-a) That the impugned order dated 29.10.2007, Annexure A-16, whereby representation of the applicants has also been rejected, may also be quashed and set aside. (ii) That if during the pendency of present original applicant, respondent No. 3 is granted any benefit pursuant to Annexure A- 14, and/or any order is passed adversely affecting the interest of applicant, in that event all such orders passed pursuant to annexure A-14, may also be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.” 2. Vide order dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure A-14) representation dated 5.4.2006 made by private respondent Sh. Rattan Lal stands decided by the Government. In terms of this order the decision dated 1.3.2006 taken by the Director Agriculture stands reversed. Consequently over and above the petitioners, private respondent Sh. Rattan Lal, on promotion, stands appointed as Superintendent Grade-II and Grade-I. He is to be placed senior to the petitioners. 3. Aggrieved petitioner made a representation which stands dismissed in terms of impugned order dated 29.10.2007 (Annexure A-16). 4. There is no dispute that Sh. Rattan Lal was appointed as a Senior Assistant on 9.12.1985. There is also no dispute that as on this date petitioners were working as steno-typist and had not been accorded the benefit of promotion as a Senior Scale Stenographer which post is equivalent to that of a Senior Assistant. 3 5. There is also no dispute that petitioner Sh. Prem Vaid who was initially appointed as a Clerk on 21.12.1972 later on switched over to the cadre of Steno-typist on 17.10.1973. There is also no dispute that petitioner No. 1 Sh. Prem Vaid was promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer on 27.2.1988 and petitioner No. 2 Smt. Shanta Kumar was promoted on 31.3.1989. 6. There is also no dispute that for the post of Superintendent Grade- II, the State of Himachal Pradesh has formulated Rules known as “the Himachal Pradesh Agriculture Deptt. Superintendent Grade-II (Class-III Non-Gazetted) R & P Rules, 1986” (for short the Rules) which stand notified in terms of notification dated 15.11.1986 (Annexure A-7). 7. Relevant portion of the Rules reads as under:- 11. In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation/ transfer, grades from which promotion/ deputation/ transfer is to be made. By promotion from amongst Superintendent Grade-IV with at least 5 years (including ad-hoc rendered upto 31.12.1983) Service as Superintendent Grade-IV and Assistant/Sr. Scale Stenographer, Combined, failing which by promotion from amongst Assistants and Sr. Scale Stenographers with at least 6 years (including adhoc rendered upto 31.12.83) service in the respective grades. (For the purpose of promotion the combine Seniority list of eligible Assistants/Sr. Scale Stenographers will be prepared on the basis of length of service in the respective grades, inter-seniority not to be disturbed). In terms of the said Rules post of Superintendent Grade-II is to be filled up by promotion amongst the Superintendent Grade-IV and Assistants/Sr. Scale Stenographers. 8. It also cannot be disputed that insofar as the eligibility is concerned petitioners and the private respondent were fully eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II and in fact were promoted as such w.e.f. :- 4 (i) Sh. Rattan Lal - 25.4.2003, (ii) Sh. Prem Vaid - 3.3.2001 and (iii) Smt. Shanta Kumari - 14.3.2001. 9. There is also no dispute that petitioners also stand promoted as Superintendent Grade-I. 10. Petitioners have placed on record the comparative chart of Clerks (Annexure A-6) from which it is evident that Sh. Rattan Lal was appointed as a Clerk w.e.f. 13.12.1972. He was promoted as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 19.8.1986 (which date is disputed by the learned counsel for Sh. Ratan Lal to be 9.12.1985) and Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f. 25.4.2003. 11. In this background what needs to be considered is as to whether in view of Rule 11 Sh. Rattan Lal could have been promoted as Superintendent Grade-II and Grade-I (general posts) over and above the petitioners. 12. From the record it is evident that such of those persons who were otherwise senior to Sh. Rattan Lal as clerks but were superceded by him on account of his accelerated promotion were subsequently promoted as Senior Assistants regained their original seniority. They were not only placed over and above Sh. Rattan Lal but were also subsequently promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II and Superintendent Grade-I (general posts). This inter se seniority between Sh. Rattan Lal and other clerks mentioned in chart (Annexure A-6) has been maintained as such by the respondent/State. This is so done in accordance with the Rules governing therein. 13. In this background the impugned action of the respondents is obviously ultra vires the relevant Rules. Inter se seniority between the respective grades, on the basis of length of service was not to be 5 disturbed. This was the basis for considering the candidature of the eligible person for the purpose of promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. 14. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned action of the Government is bad in law. It is violative of its own Rules. As such order dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure A-14) and order dated 29.10.2007 (Annexure A-16) are quashed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. All consequences to follow. CMP No. 210 of 2010 in CWP(T) No. 13201/2008 15. Infructuous in view of the orders passed in the main petition. CWP No. 2509 of 2010 16. Infructuous in view of the orders passed in CWP(T) No. 13201 of 2008. CMP No. 3745/2010 and CMP No. 5567/2010 17. Infructuous. Disposed of as such. CMP No. 3746 of 2010 18. Infructuous. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 20, 2010 (PK)