IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3348 of 2024 Judgment reserved on 09.05.2025 Date of Decision: 03.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kulwardhan Singh & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes. For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/ State. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ms. Ritta Goswami, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rekha Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 9 and 10. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “i). That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the impugned order Annexure P-10, dated 5th March,2024 may kindly be quashed and set aside and likewise the impugned order Annexure P-6 dated 16.9.2021 may also kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice; ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to re-draw the seniority list by placing the petitioners above all the private respondents being throughout senior in the interest of law and justice; iii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents that in case if the date of promotion of respondent No.3 is to be preponed, in that eventuality, one deemed date i.e. 30.12.2013 may kindly be assigned to all the promotions including promotions of HOD and Principals (Polytechnic) for which the Departmental Promotions Committee were conducted on one date i.e.28.11.2013 in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, is that in no eventuality, private respondent Nos. 3 to 9 could have been placed senior to them in the seniority list of Heads of the Departments circulated by the department vide Notification dated 5.3.2024.While opposing the promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of HoD (Electrical) on notional basis w.e.f. 30.12.2013, it has been also claimed on behalf of the petitioners that in no circumstance promotion of aforesaid respondent could be preponed that too after inordinate delay 11 years. 3 3. The petitioners were appointed as Lecturers (Computer Engineering) and they joined on 6.2.1998. Petitioners were further promoted as Senior Lecturers on 18.11.2011, whereafter respondent- Department conducted Departmental Promotion Committee (in short “DPC”) for promotion to the post of Heads of Departments in various Departments on 28.11.2013. DPC was also conducted for promotion to the post of Principals (Polytechnics) on 28.11.2013. Petitioners amongst others were considered in DPC for the post of HoD in their respective department, but DPC recommended them against the resultant vacancies. There were 05 vacancies, 02 clear cut vacancies and 03 anticipated vacancies of HODs in the discipline of Computer Engineering. Two persons, namely Sh. Pankaj Kishore and Sh. Sameer Bharti were recommended against clear cut vacancies, whereas petitioners were recommended against anticipated vacancies, but petitioners came to be promoted ahead of two persons namely, Sh. Pankaj Kishore and Sh. Sameer Bharti against actual vacancies on 31.12.2013 and they joined on 01.01.2014 and 20.01.2014 respectively. 4. Similarly, DPC for promotion to the post of HoD (Electrical) was conducted on 28.11.2013, wherein respondent No.3, Sh. Rajinder Singh Barwal, amongst others was promoted to the post of HOD (Electrical), but on 13.01.2014. Thereafter, the Department 4 issued interse seniority list of HoD of various departments, wherein private respondents came to be reflected senior to the petitioners. Petitioners’ claim is that they remained senior to the private respondents throughout their service career right from the post of lecturers as well as Senior Lecturers and as such, could not have been made junior to private respondents in the interse seniority list of HODs. 5. For completion of facts, it is important to take note of the fact that respondent No.3, who belongs to Electrical Engineering Department made a representation after 8 years raising issue that since his promotion order was issued on 13.01.2014, whereas promotion orders in Civil Engineering and Computer Engineering Department were issued on 30.12.2013 on the basis of DPC recommendation dated 28.11.2013, he was rendered junior to incumbents of Civil Engineering and Computer Engineering Departments. Respondent-Department allowed the representation of Mr. Rajinder Singh Barwal on 16.09.2021 and promoted him on notional basis w.e.f.30.12.2013. 6. Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 also made representations on 26.08.2023 and 30.09.2023 claiming that order dated 16.09.2021 was passed/ issued behind their back and they were senior to respondent No.3 throughout their service career. 5 Petitioner No.1 made another representation on 23.11.2023, stating therein that interse seniority of HoDs was never circulated and without that, promotion to the post of Principal (Polytechnics) could not have been made. However, on 5.10.2024, interse seniority list of HODs of various streams was circulated, wherein all the private respondents were assigned seniority over the petitioners, showing date of promotion of respondent No.3 as HoD on 13.12.2013. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have assailed order dated 16.9.2021 and seniority list dated 5.10.2024. 7. Respondent No.2 in its reply has stated that seniority of different posts in different streams is maintained separately and incumbent of one stream cannot claim seniority over the incumbent of another stream and thus, in circumstances, a junior person (with respect to date of appointment) in one cadre may be appointed ahead of a senior person in another cadre, while being promoted to the post of HoD and thus the petitioners cannot claim seniority over the private respondents, who are borne in different streams. It is further averred in the reply that DPC has been held in right manner and petitioners were recommended for the post of HoD (Computer Engineering) against the resultant vacancies (Annexure P-1), but posting orders were issued erroneously on 30.12.2013 (Annexure P-2). As per afore reply of the respondents, petitioners were to be considered against 6 the resultant vacancies, but inadvertently they were given posting orders against the actual vacancies, as a result thereof, they joined as Head of Department (Computer Engineering) in the respective colleges ahead of persons namely, Sh. Pankaj Kishore and Sh. Sameer Bharti, who otherwise as per recommendation dated 28.11.2013 made by DPC were to be appointed against actual vacancies. It is further averred in the reply that inadvertent mistake committed by the department was subsequently rectified on the representation submitted by above named persons by passing order dated 5.3.2024. As per the reply filed by the respondents, at present, out of total 16 numbers of Polytechnics in the State 11 numbers of Diploma streams are running. In addition, Applied Science and Humanities Department also exists in all the Polytechnics. Initial appointment to the post of Lecturer is 100% by direct recruitment except in Computer Stream, where quota of 10% is provided for Computer Assistant. In each department, Lecturers from separate cadres with independent sanctioned strength, separate promotional channels to the post of Senior Lecturers and then as HOD. After this the promotional channel is to the post of Principle of Polytechnic where all the HODs of different departments constitute a common feeder cadre. This leads, sometimes to promotion of a person, appointed to entry post, at a later date ahead of a person, so 7 appointed at an earlier date. As per reply of respondent-department, this is justified position since between Lecturers/ Senior Lecturers from separate cadres in each stream/department, having independent and separate sanctioned strength, promotional avenues and separate seniority lists. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 9. Before deciding the controversy at hand, it would be apt to take note of organizational structure of the respondent-Department. Respondent No.2 is the Department of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, wherein there are different posts of lecturers in various disciplines, Senior Lecturer is a feeder category for the promotion as Head of the Department. Every institution has a post of Principal for which HoD is the feeder category. The issue at hand pertains to interse seniority between petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 10, who admittedly do not belong to the stream/cadre of the petitioners. The meeting of DPC for promotion of HOD in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering and Civil Engineering was held on 28.11.2013. Minutes of meeting of DPC was approved on 17.12.2013. The promotion orders of HOD, Civil Engineering and Computer Engineering were issued on 30.12.2013, whereas promotion orders of HOD, Electrical Engineering were issued on 8 13.01.2024, as a result thereof, respondent No.3, who was recommended for promotion to the post of HOD Electrical Engineering, came to be placed junior to his counterpart of other streams. Similarly, on 28.11.2013 DPC was also held for promotion to the post of HOD (Computer Engineering) against 02 clear cut vacancies and 03 resultant vacancies likely to be caused due to promotion of Sh. Puneet Mahajan, Sh. D.R. Sharma and Sh. Neeraj Uppal HODs as Principals Government Polytechnics. Though, DPC recommended the names of Sh. Pankaj Kishore and Sh. Sameer Bharti against 02 clear cut existing vacancies and petitioners against 03 resultant vacancies, to arise on demitting of offices by Sh. Puneet Mahajan, Sh. D.R.Sharma and Sh. Neeraj Uppal. However, vide order dated 30.12.2013 (Annexure-A), petitioners namely, Kulwardhan Singh and Rajesh Sharma came to be promoted on 30.12.2013 alongwith Sh. Pankaj Kishore and Sh. Sameer Bharti without mentioning the joining dates of Sh. Kulwardhan Singh and Sh. Rajesh Sharma and their posting against the existing vacancies is contrary to the recommendations of DPC meeting held on 28.11.2013. On account of aforesaid inadvertent mistake as well as posting order dated 30.12.2013, petitioners herein are claiming that they are senior to Sh. Rajinder Singh Barwal, who was given retrospective 9 promotions as HOD (Electrical Engineering) on 30.12.2013 against existing/ clear cut vacancy. 10. Subsequently, as has been taken note hereinabove, respondent No.3 made a representation raising the issue that since his promotion order was issued on 13.01.2014 alongwith other incumbents belonging to stream of Civil Engineering & Computer Engineering Department, whose promotion orders were issued on 30.12.2013, he has been rendered junior to incumbents of both the aforesaid stream, respondent-Department taking note of glaring mistake which is otherwise apparent on the record, allowed the representation of respondent No.3 on 16.09.2021 and promoted him on notional basis w.e.f. 30.12.2013, as a result thereof, petitioners, who, at first instance, were promoted on 30.12.2013 became junior to aforesaid person in the seniority list of HODs. As per order dated 16.09.2021, petitioners were to be promoted after 13.01.2014 on which date, 02 posts of HOD(Computer Engineering) had become available on account of promotion of Sh. D.R. Sharma and Sh. Neeraj Uppal on their further promotion to the post of Principal (Polytechnics). 11. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners, is that 10 since it is not in dispute that petitioners herein were senior to private respondents at entry level, they otherwise could not have been given seniority over and above them in any eventuality. Besides above, it has been further argued that in no circumstance, date of appointment of person could be preponed after eight years. Mr. Bhushan, further argued that once five DPCs were conducted on the same day i.e. 28.11.2013, same could not have been given effect to from different dates, rather promotions, if any, recommended on a particular date were to be given effect on the same date. He further submitted that seniority list issued is contrary to the provisions contained in the R& P Rules for the post of Principal because Clause 10 of the Rules for the post of Principal (Polytechnic) clearly provides that for the purpose of promotion, separate combined seniority list based on length of service without disturbing their unit wise interse seniority shall be maintained. He stated that the nomenclature used is “length of service”, therefore, that length has to be considered from the date of initial appointment as Lecturer. He stated that the rules nowhere provide that the seniority would be maintained from the date of appointment as HOD, therefore, just in order to give advantage to the private respondent, Rule 10 has been flouted. He further submitted that no tentative interse seniority list of HODs was ever issued, therefore, final seniority list could not have been issued straightway. Lastly, Mr. Bhushan 11 argued that the persons, who have joined as Lecturer 8 years later than that of the petitioners, have been made senior to the petitioners, which is totally impermissible. He further submitted that all DPCs including DPC of Principal were conducted on same date i.e. 28.11.2013 and proceedings came out on 17.12.2013, therefore, promotion orders should have been issued simultaneously in order to avoid any confusion so that nobody suffers on account of such fortuitous circumstances. 12. To the contrary, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General while justifying the impugned action of the respondents vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that Senior Lecturer is a feeder cadre for the post of HOD in each Polytechnic and every institution has a post of Principal for which HOD is feeder category, arguments advanced by learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that length of service is the criteria for promotion to the post of Principal is wholly misplaced. He further submitted that seniority of different posts in different streams is maintained separately and incumbent of one stream cannot claim seniority over the incumbent of other stream. He submitted that since private respondents while working in different polytechnics were recommended ahead of petitioners for promotion to the post of HOD, they were rightly placed higher in the seniority list prepared for promotion of HODs to the post 12 of Principal of polytechnic college. Lastly, learned Advocate General argued that respondent-Department is/was well within its right to rectify its mistake. He submitted that as per recommendation of the DPC, petitioners were to be considered against the resultant vacancies, which admittedly became available on later dates, however inadvertently petitioners were given promotion against the existing vacancies, as a result thereof, they joined ahead of two persons, who were actually to be given promotion against the existing vacancies. He further submitted that though respondent No.3 was recommended to be promoted as HOD by the DPC on 28.11.2013, however department failed to issue promotion order in time, as a result thereof, afore person, who otherwise was entitled to be given promotion from the date lecturers/senior lecturers belonging to the departments of Civil Engineering and Computer Engineering were given promotion from a later date. However, subsequently on the representation filed by respondent No.3, afore mistake was rectified. 13. In nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that the date of appointment of a person, i.e., respondent No. 3, could not have been preponed after a period of eight years, and similarly, the date of promotion and joining of the petitioners could not have been postponed, that too after a period of ten years. The recommendations given by five DPCs conducted on the same date, i.e., 28.11.2013, 13 ought to have been given effect from the one date. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the final seniority list could not have been issued without first issuing a tentative seniority list, and that the final seniority list issued vide order dated 5.3.2024 is contrary to the provisions contained in the Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) Rules governing the post of Principal. Lastly, it has been further argued on behalf of the petitioners that, in no eventuality, persons who were much junior to them at the time of entering into service could rank higher in the seniority list subsequently. 14. At the cost of repetition, it is once again noticed that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to the post of HOD (Electrical) was conducted on 28.11.2013 and respondent No. 3, Sh. Rajinder Singh Barwal, amongst others, was promoted on 13.01.2014. Afore respondent, by way of a representation, raised the issue that promotion orders in the Computer Engineering and Civil Engineering Departments were issued on 30.12.2013, as a result thereof, persons recommended by the DPC for promotion to the post of HOD in the aforesaid disciplines joined prior to respondent No.3, whose promotion orders were issued on 13.01.2014. Consequently, persons who, though were recommended on the same date as the petitioners, came to be placed senior to them. The respondent- Department, after having noticed the aforesaid anomaly, allowed the 14 representation of respondent No. 3 on 16.09.2021 and postponed his date of promotion to 30.12.2013. 15. Though Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, attempted to argue that in no eventuality the date of promotion of respondent No. 3 could be preponed after a period of eight years, however, since it is not in dispute that the promotion orders of the petitioners to the post of HOD, on the basis of the recommendation made by the DPC held on 28.11.2013, were otherwise required to be issued on 30.12.2013 along with the incumbents of the Civil Engineering and Computer Engineering Departments, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent-Department while preponing the date of promotion of respondent No. 3, who had otherwise become eligible to join the post of HOD (Electrical) on 30.12.2013 pursuant to the recommendation made by the DPC held on 28.11.2013. Respondent No. 1, being the administrative head of Technical Education, Himachal Pradesh, is the only competent authority to rectify the aforesaid mistake. 16. No doubt, on account of the aforesaid rectification, petitioners became junior to respondent No. 3, but such fact cannot be a ground to agree with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners. Since the mistake committed by the respondents in issuing the promotion orders of the 15 petitioners on 13.01.2014 had serious repercussions qua the seniority of respondent No. 3 in the cadre of Heads of Departments, coupled with the fact that respondent No. 3 had represented to the competent authority in that regard, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the aforesaid decision of respondent No. 1. Otherwise also, this Court finds that names of the petitioners appeared in the DPC for promotion to the post of HOD (Computer Engineering) held on 28.11.2013 and, as per the recommendations of the DPC, the petitioners were to be considered against two anticipated vacancies of HOD, which were likely to arise due to promotion of Shri Puneet Mahajan, Shri D.R. Sharma, and Shri Neeraj Uppal, who were promoted as Principals (Polytechnics). The DPC recommended the names of two officers, Shri Pankaj Kishore and Shri Sameer Bharti, against two clear vacancies, however, while issuing the promotion order dated 30.12.2013 for HOD (Computer Engineering), the petitioners were promoted on 30.12.2013 along with Shri Pankaj Kishore and Shri Sameer Bharti without mentioning the dates of joining. 17. As per the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 28.11.2013, the petitioners could have been promoted to the post of HOD on 20.01.2014 and 18.01.2014, respectively, on which date, Shri Puneet Mahajan, Shri D.R. Sharma, and Shri Neeraj Uppal demitted the office of HOD. 16 Subsequently, vide order dated 16.09.2021, the aforesaid mistake was rectified, as a result thereof, petitioners, besides becoming junior to persons, namely Shri Pankaj Kishore and Shri Sameer Bharti, also became junior to Shri Rajinder Singh Barwal, respondent No. 3, who was erroneously promoted vide impugned promotion order dated 30.12.2013. Since the inadvertent mistake, as noticed hereinabove, occurred due to omission on the part of the respondent-Department and had the same been not corrected, it would have caused serious prejudice to the persons named hereinabove, this Court sees no illegality in the preponment of the date of appointment of the person named hereinabove after a lapse of eight years. Otherwise also, petitioners herein cannot be permitted to raise a plea that on account of mistake, if any, committed by the respondents, while issuing promotion orders of persons namely Shri Pankaj Kishore, Shri Sameer Bharti, and Sh. Rajinder Singh Barwal, respondent No. 3, a right to rank senior in the seniority list of HOD had accrued in their favour. The petitioners, who otherwise in terms of the recommendation made by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting held on 28.11.2013, were to be granted promotion to the post of HOD (Computer Engineering) upon demitting of office by Shri Puneet Mahajan, Shri D.R. Sharma, and Shri Neeraj Uppal on 17 20.01.2014, 18.01.2014, and 13.01.2014 respectively, they cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of the situation. 18. On account of aforesaid rectification of mistake, the date of promotion and joining of the petitioners rightly came to be changed, albeit after a period of eight and ten years. Once it is apparent on record that, in no circumstance, the petitioners could rank higher in seniority than the persons named hereinabove, this Court finds it difficult to interfere with the decision of the respondents in preponing the date of promotion of respondent No.3, as a result of which the date of promotion of the petitioners came to be postponed. 19. True, it is that five DPCs were conducted on the same date i.e. on 28.11.2013, but the recommendation made by the DPC in aforesaid meeting could not have been given effect on that date, especially in the case of the petitioners where the DPC had specifically ordered promotion of the petitioners to the post of HOD (Computer Department) against resultant vacancies, which were to fall vacant on the promotion of Sh. Puneet Mahajan, Sh. D.R. Sharma, and Sh. Neeraj Uppal. Since aforesaid persons, after having been promoted to the post of Principal in different polytechnics of the respondent-State, demitted their offices on 20.01.2014, 18.01.2014, and 13.01.2014 respectively, petitioners herein rightly came to be promoted to the post of HOD (Computer) on 20.01.2014 and 18 18.01.2014 respectively. Mere fact that on one date five DPCs were conducted would not compel or make it mandatory upon the respondents to give effect to the recommendation of DPC from the same date, especially when the DPC had granted promotion to the petitioners against the resultant vacancies, which only became available on subsequent dates i.e. 20.01.2014, 18.01.2014. 20. At this stage, this Court finds it necessary to refer to Rule 11 of the Recruitment and Promotion (R & P) Rules for the post of Principal, which is reproduced herein below:— 11 In case of recruitment/ promotion/ deputation/ transfer, grades, from which promotion/ deputation/ transfer is to be made By promotion from amongst Heads of Departments and Deputy Director of Education. Possessing 5 years regular service or regular combined service (rendered upto 31.3.1991) if any, in their respective grades. For the purpose of promotion, separate combined seniority list based on the length of service without disturbing their unit-wise interse seniority shall be prepared. 21. Learned senior Counsel representing the petitioners while referring to aforesaid Rules vehemently argued that for the purpose of promotion, separate combined seniority list based on the length of service without disturbing their unit-wise interse seniority shall be maintained. He stated that nomenclature used is length of 19 service, therefore, that length has to be considered from the date of initial appointment as Lecturer. He further stated that rules nowhere provides that the seniority would be maintained from the date of appointment as HOD, but with a view to give advantage to the private respondent, Rule 10 has been flouted. However, having carefully perused aforesaid Rule, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners. If Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Principal Polytechnic in the Department of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial training are read in entirety, it clearly provides that there are five posts of Principal (Polytechnic) in the pay scale of Rs. 41250-125-5000-150-5600/- which his selection post is required to be filled up 100% by promotion. 22. Rule 11 clearly provides that promotion to the post of Principal shall be made from amongst Heads of Department and Deputy Directors of Education, possessing five years of combined service rendered up to 31.03.1991, if any, in their respective grades. Most importantly, in the aforesaid rules it has been clarified that for the purpose of promotion, a separate combined seniority list based on the length of service shall be prepared, without disturbing their unit- wise inter se seniority. The expression "length of service" as mentioned in the aforesaid rules refers to the combined seniority list of Heads of Department, meaning thereby that, while considering a 20 Head of Department for promotion to the post of Principal, his length of service against the post of HOD shall be taken into account, without altering his unit-wise inter se seniority of HODs in respective streams. Since, it is apparent from the pleadings as well as discussion made hereinabove that the cadre of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/Head of Department in different streams running in different polytechnics, are different and sanctioned strength of different streams in various polytechnics is also different, meaning thereby Lecturer in a branch of engineering/ stream constitutes a different cadre from those in another branches of engineering and Lecturers in all streams with five years experience become eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer in their respective streams. Senior Lecturer becomes eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Head of Department in the respective discipline or stream, as per the seniority reflected in the final seniority list circulated from time to time. Since seniority of Lecturers as well as Senior Lecturers is/was maintained in the respective streams, junior person at the entry level of Lecturer in one stream can become HOD in the respective stream earlier than another Lecturer who may be otherwise senior at the entry level in the other stream. 23. Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/Head of Department (HOD) of one stream cannot claim seniority above Lecturer/Senior 21 Lecturer/HOD of another stream merely on the basis of the fact that he was senior at the entry level. The cadre of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/HOD in different streams running in different Polytechnics are different and the sanctioned strength of different streams in different Polytechnics is also different as well as one stream is running in one Polytechnic, whereas the other stream may or may not be running in the other Polytechnic. For the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal of a Polytechnic, the feeder category is that of HOD as such, seniority list of HODs is prepared on the basis of the date of promotion to the post of HOD. 24. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Head of the Department (HOD) in every stream are different, and the number of posts of HOD may also vary, as a result thereof, one person, on account of the fact that there are two posts of HOD in the Department of Electrical, may be promoted to the post of HOD earlier than his counterpart in another department where may be only one post of HOD. Since there are/were two posts of HOD in the Department of Electrical, two Senior Lecturers in the Electrical Department may be promoted to the post of HOD, whereas persons in another department, who may be senior to the persons in the Electrical Department at the entry level, may not get the opportunity/chance to be promoted against the post of HOD in that 22 particular department. Once Lecturer/Senior Lecturer is promoted to the post of HOD, his seniority is strictly reflected in the seniority list of HODs of various departments, prepared for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal of the Polytechnic. Otherwise also, the expression used "without disturbing inter se seniority" itself suggests that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal, a separate combined seniority list of HODs, based on the length of their service as HOD, shall be prepared, but without disturbing their unit-wise inter se seniority within their respective streams. 25. Arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner that "length of service" would mean that, while preparing seniority list of HODs, the service rendered by the teacher concerned from the date of his initial entry into service is required to be taken into account, if accepted, would render the Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed for promotion to the post of HOD, and thereafter to the post of Principal, redundant. 26. Though, petitioners have raised issue with regard to preparation of tentative seniority list before issuance of the final seniority list, but such omission, if any, on the part of the respondents may not be of much consequence, for the reason that the petitioners did not raise any objection qua the seniority list of HODs till the time they were shown higher in the seniority than respondent No.3. Till the 23 passing of order dated 16.09.2021, before which date petitioners were shown to be higher in ranking than respondent No.3, they never raised any grievance regarding non-issuance of tentative seniority list, but once department, after rectifying its mistake, as detailed hereinabove, issued the seniority list thereby showing the petitioners as junior to respondent No.3 in the seniority list prepared for promotion to the post of HOD, the petitioners raised aforesaid frivolous plea. 27. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners has also apprised this Hon’ble Court that the respondents have now initiated the process for amending the rules in order to remove all ambiguities. Though such rules have been approved by the Department of Personnel as well as the Finance Department, but fact remains that same are yet to be approved by the Cabinet. Till the time, amendments of the rules are not approved by the Cabinet and those are not notified in the Official Gazette, the seniority list of HODs prepared for promotion to the post of HOD shall continue to be governed by the existing rules, which unambiguously provide for the preparation of a separate combined seniority list of HODs based on their length of service against the post of HOD, without disturbing the unit-wise inter se seniority list. 24 28. In G.S. Lamba & others v. Union of India and others, (1985) 2 SCC 604, Their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court held that the incumbents, who have entered into service prior in point of time, would be senior to those who enter the service at a later point of time. Their Lordships held that, “In the absence of any other valid principle of seniority it is well-established that the continuous officiation in the cadre, grade or service will provide a valid principle of seniority.” At this stage, it would be apt to take note of para No.28 of afore judgment herein below:- “28. Once the promotees were promoted regularly to substantive vacancies even if temporary unless there was a chance of their demotion to the lower cadre, their continuous officiation confers on them an advantage of being senior to the later recruits under Rule 21(4). If as stated earlier by the enormous departure or by the power to relax, the quota rule was not adhered to, the rota rule for inter se seniority as prescribed in Section 25(1)(ii) cannot be given effect to. In the absence of any other valid principle of seniority it is well-established that the continuous officiation in the cadre, grade or service will provide a valid principle of seniority. The seniority lists having not been prepared on this principle are liable to be quashed and set aside” 29. However, the aforesaid judgment may not be applicable in the present case, since initially the petitioners and private respondents were born on different cadres in different departments. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case tilted O.P. Singla v. Union of India, (1984) 4 SCC 450, to inure his claim of seniority, but bare reading of para-26 thereof reveals that Their Lordships have observed that, “the prerequisite of the right to 25 inclusion in a common list of seniority is that all those who claim that right must, broadly, bear the same characteristics. The mere circumstance that they hold posts which carry the same designation will not justify the conclusion that they belong to the same class.” In the case at hand, petitioners and private respondents were born on different cadres of Lecturers/Senior Lecturers being in different departments, whose seniority is maintained separately, therefore, this judgment also goes against the case of the petitioners. 31. Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel, while relying upon B.S. Mathur & another v. Union of India & others, (2008) 10 SCC 271, argued that as per law laid down in case supra, continuous length of service should be used to determine inter-se seniority. However, again, this judgment may not be of any help to the case of petitioners, since in the case before Their Lordships, matter pertained to inter-se seniority of promotees and direct recruits to a common cadre, but in the case at hand, matter pertains to seniority assigned to incumbents of different cadres, where even the seniority is maintained separately. 32. On the other hand, Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.4 placed reliance upon Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267, to state that seniority can be given 26 from back date, on the basis of objective considerations and on a valid classification and therefore, his client has been rightly given seniority from back date. 33. Mr. Chauhan, further relied upon H.S. Sidhu v. Devendra Bapna, (2016) 1 SCC 495, to state that High Court cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by DPC and though High Court in certain circumstances can remit the matter back to DPC, but even then it cannot assess the merit on its own. Mr. Chauhan also relied upon Union of India v. N.C. Murali, (2017) 13 SCC 575 to state that retrospective promotions can be given in certain circumstances and therefore, no illegality can be found with the action of the respondent University in giving retrospective promotion to his client. 34. The summum bonum of aforesaid law relied upon by Mr. Chauhan is that retrospective promotion can be given in certain circumstances and High Court cannot substitute itself for the wisdom and assessment of DPC. 35. Another aspect of the matter is that the law relied upon by Mr. Bhushan does not support his case, rather, weakens his case, for the reason that in those judgments, issue was with respect to inter- se seniority of one cadre, whereas in the case at hand ,definitely the petitioners and private respondents were born on different cadres 27 right from the post of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer and then as Heads of Departments and it is only in the post of Principal, that all the cadres in an institution merge and ‘separate combined’ inter-se seniority is required to be prepared, in which it is not uncommon that a person appointed at a later date in his cadre, may become senior to another person, appointed at an earlier date, in another cadre. At this juncture, it may be worth mentioning here that the posts of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in different departments form a different cadre, despite same nomenclature, for the reason that selection process is different, qualifications are different and even seniority is maintained separately. Therefore, a incumbent of one cadre cannot claim seniority over an incumbent of another cadre. 36. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 03, 2025 (shankar)