IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 14434 of 2008 Decided on : 23.11.2011 ________________________________________________ Suresh Pal Malik … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others .. Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate, vice Mr. Madan Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Add.A.G., with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G., for respondents No. 1 and2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASGI, for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii):- “(i) That the respondents No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to create the post of Professor in the department of Sharir Rachana in which the applicant has been serving as Reader. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 (ii) That the respondents No. 1 and 2 be further directed to consider and promote the applicant to the post of Professor w.e.f. the date the applicant became eligible as per R&P Rules for the post of Professor along with all consequential benefits.” 2. In reply respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the following stand vide paras 6(iii) to 6(x) and 7 (i) & (ii):- ”6(iii) It is very clear from this para that the applicant was firstly promoted on Adhoc basis as Reader in the year 2000 for a period of 6 months and subsequently regularized in the year 2001. Hence, it is clear that respondents are considering the case periodically and at the time of his fitness for promotion. (iv) In reply to this para, it is submitted that it is not essential if one completes the requirement of R & P Rules, he is immediately promoted to next higher post irrespective of availability of promotional post. The applicant was promoted as Reader in the year 2000 on Adhoc basis and becomes eligible for the post of Professor in 2006, if post of Professor exists in the department of Sharir Rachna. But at present, there is no post of Professor sanctioned in the department of Sharir Rachna to which specialty the applicant belongs, as is evident clear from Annexure A- 5 annexed with the present application. Due 3 to non-availability of post in the faculty concerned, the candidature of the applicant cannot be considered. Hence, the contention of the applicant is misleading. (v) The posts are created/sanctioned as per Central Council of Indian Medicines (CCIM) norms for which the matter is to be taken up with the prescribed authorities. The posts are sanctioned to a particular department, by the CCIM. Therefore, the claim of the applicant is wrong, that in the other department after bifurcation to the faculties, the posts of Professor have been provided. The anticipated claim of applicant to the post of Principal is also wrong and fabricated. The posts of Professors, Readers and Sr. Lecturers are provided/created according to the exigency of work and norms fixed by the CCIM. Therefore, the claim of the applicant i.e. to create the post of Professor in the department of Sharir Rachna and then promote him to the post, so that he could become eligible for further promotion as Principal. The claim of the applicant does not have any merit. (vi) That the teaching infrastructure is irrelevant with the promotion of individual. (vii) The contents of this para are wrong ,hence denied. The post of Professor will be provided to the applicants department according to the rules/norms of CCIM and availability of funds by the Govt. 4 The rules for the post of Principal has no connection with the creation of posts of Professor and further promotion of the applicant. Since the applicant is a Reader as yet and mere eligibility cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Principal at this stage. (viii) The contents of this para are wrong hence denied. The promotion/eligibility of other incumbents of the other departments cannot be compared with the applicants eligibility. The Government is not bound to create all the posts as per CCIM norms, but are created/filled as per budget provision as well as exigency of work in a particular department. The Ayurvedic college Paprola is one of the leading colleges in the county and have all infrastructure available. The Government of H.P. has granted permission to run P.G. classes in 6 departments. The department has provided minimum standard to college and college is running smoothly. The CCIM has been giving recognition to this college regularly. (ix) That the request of the applicant for providing post of Professor in the department of Sharir Rachna can, however , be considered after taking into account the exigency of work in the department of Sharir Rachna at appropriate time. (x) It is correct that every person has constitutional right to be considered 5 for promotion but that is possible when the posts are available in the particular department. The request of the applicant could be considered on the availability of posts. 7(i) & (ii) In reply to these paras , it is submitted that the post of Professor will be provided to the applicants department according to the rules/norms of CCIM and availability of funds by the Government. The request of the applicant for promotion to the post of Professor can be considered sympathetically at appropriate time, but the applicant cannot force the department for doing so.” 3. The stand on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 is akin to that of respondents No. 1 and 2. 4. In view of the above reply, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, who shall consider and take final decision in the matter within further three months in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent No.4, if so desired. 6 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any, in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 23, 2011. (Lsp)