IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.5828 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 27, 2010 Daya Sindhu …Petitioner. Versus: State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P. M. Negi, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Since September, 1973 petitioner is working as Shastri with the respondent-State. He is a qualified Acharya. He has done his Masters in Sanskrit and has obtained a degree of Doctorate in Sanskrit. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh has framed the Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class III (Cadre of Head Pandits, Pandits and other Teaching Personnel of Sanskrit Colleges and Sanskrit Pathshala) Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). For the next higher promotional post i.e. Pandits, the method of recruitment and the eligibility criteria prescribed is as follows: 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Educational qualifications and other qualifications for direct recruitment. Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion/ deputation. 8. 11. (i) Essential Acharya from recognized University/ Institution or Diploma of which is recognized equivalent to Acharya of Arya University incorporated under Law; or a Shiksha Shastri from the Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Tirupati, Madras. (ii) Desirable knowledge of English or Matriculation or its equivalent from the recognized Board or University. 50% by direct Recruitment, 10% from amongst the Shastris already working in the School and Inspection Cadre of Education Department on the basis of seniority-cum-merit/ fitness provided further that in the case of other categories, they must fulfill the requisite qualifications as prescribed in Column No.8 of this Annexure. 3. It is not disputed at the bar that petitioner was fully eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Pandit. The respondent- State circulated a seniority list of the Shastries and undisputedly petitioner, who was placed at Sl. No. 38 was senior to at least four persons to whom the respondents-State has issued orders of promotion as Pandits. Petitioner was not even considered for such promotion. 4. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed the instant petition (OA No. 1561/99) before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal which now stands transferred to this Court. The fact that persons junior to petitioner stand promoted without any justifiable cause is clearly averred in the petition. Importantly, petitioner also annexed a copy of the decision dated 15.12.1995 rendered by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 71 of 1986 titled as Dharam Pal vs. State of H.P. & Ors., wherein similarly situated persons like the petitioner, 3 were given benefits of promotion. The operative part of the order passed in Dharam Pal (supra) reads as under:- “7. In view of above narration, the application is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Pandit when any one of the private respondents was appointed and if the applicant is found suitable and eligible he should be promoted to such post. The respondents are further directed to grant all the consequential benefits including the arrears of pay to the applicant from due date.” 5. Shockingly, the reply filed by the State is cryptic and does not deal with the averments made in the petition. The same is reproduced in toto as under:- “1. That the applicant has filed the aforesaid Original Application before this Hon’ble Tribunal and the same is pending adjudication. 2. That the applicant has prayed for the following relief by way of present application: i) That the respondent may be directed to notionally appoint the applicant as a Pandit or against the post of a Pandit with effect from the date his juniors were so appointed. ii) That the respondent department may also be directed to release the arrears of salary due and permissible to the applicant on account of his appointment as Pandit or against the post of a Pandit with effect from the date his juniors were so appointed. iii) That respondents may be directed to produce entire record pertaining to the case. 3. That the present application is not maintainable in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in J&K Public Service Commission vs. Dr. Narinder Nath and 4 others reported in (AIR) 1994-SC-1808 and State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh and others reported in (1992) 4-SCC-118. However, factual position is being placed here-in-below in the succeeding paras. 4. That it is respectfully submitted that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules with respect to the post of Acharya (Sanskrit College Cadre) have already been framed and notified. The regular appointments to these posts are to be made in accordance with the said rules. The case of the applicant will be considered accordingly if found eligible. 5. That in view of the submissions made in para-4 supra nothing survives for determination, thus, present application has rendered infructuous and the same may kindly be disposed of. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that appropriate orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in the interest of justice.” 6. In December, 2009 petitioner had moved an appropriate application and even at this stage no reply, either to the petition or to the application was filed by the State. Presumably the State has nothing more to say. How the decisions of the Apex Court referred to in the reply are relevant to the facts in issue could not be explained during the course of the hearing. In the instant case, there is no challenge to the Rules. Also there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner’s eligibility. The Rules are unambiguous and needs no interpretation. They need to be simply followed and implemented. 7. As noticed above, the essential qualification for being considered for promotion as Pandit is Acharya from a recognized 5 University. Petitioner is a qualified Ph.D in Sanskrit. Even in the Court it could not be pointed out as to how petitioner was not entitled for promotion as a Pandit. His juniors were unjustifiably allowed to march over him. 8. As such, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of a Pandit from the date when his immediate junior was promoted. Petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay etc. Necessary action be positively taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The arrears be released within the said period, thereafter petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9%. The petition is allowed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. April 27, 2010 (rana)