2025:HHC:29525 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1592 of 2019 Decided on: 28.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Smt. Urvashi Chaudhary and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. yes For the petitioners: Mr. C.N. Singh and Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2-State. None for respondent No.3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral] Challenge in the present Civil Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioners is to the order passed by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3199 of 2017, titled Urvashi Chaudhary and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 09.07.2019, (Annexure P-4). 2. The claim, as such, of the petitioners was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:29525 - 2 - rejected for considering their case for promotion to the post of Inspector (Hotels) from the date of their juniors were promoted to the said post with all consequential benefits. 3. Resultantly, directions were sought to consider the case of the petitioners for relaxation for promotion to the post of Inspector (Hotels), on the ground that they were discharging their duties as such, on account of the Notification dated 14.10.2004, (Annexure A-3). 4. Challenge had also been raised to the order dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure A-12) whereby, the case of the petitioners had been rejected. Similar challenge had been raised to Rule-11 of the amended Rules of 2012, which provided that the requisite qualification, as such, would be Graduation from a recognized University with two years of service pertaining to the Recruitment and Promotions Rules for the post of Inspector (Hotels) [Class-III, Non-Gazetted] in the Department of Tourism & Civil Aviation, Himachal Pradesh. 5. The reasoning, as such, was that as per un- amended Rules of the year 1998, the provision, as such, was for the post of Inspector (Hotels) 100% by direct 2025:HHC:29525 - 3 - recruitment, failing which by way of deputation. The amendment on 24.04.2012, as such, had bifurcated the quota at 60% to be filled-up by transfer and 40% by direct recruitment. 6. Resultantly, it had been noticed that the requisite eligibility criteria is Graduation from a recognized University with Diploma in Hotel Management or Bachelor Degree in Tourism Administration from a recognized University, which would be clear from Rule 7, with minimum educational criteria provided, in case, of transfer under Clause 11, the requirement of graduate with two years of service as Senior Assistant on seniority/option basis. 7. Accordingly, it was held that merely on account of Notification dated 14.10.2004, (Annexure A-3) there could not be, any legitimate expectation to be promoted especially when the avenue of promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II, was made available to them and thus the stand was held to be dehors the Rules. Counsel for the writ petitioners has referred to Rule 8 also to submit that educational qualifications were not applicable in case of promotes. The relevant 2025:HHC:29525 - 4 - Rules read as under: 7. Minimum educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION Graduate from a recognized University with Diploma in Hotel Management Or Bachelor Degree in Tourism Administration from a recognized University. DESIRABLE QUALIFICATION: Knowledge of customs, manners and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh 8. Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case of the promotes Age: Not applicable. Educational Qualification: Not applicable 9. Period of probation, if any. Two years subject to such further extension for a period not exceeding one year as may ordered by the competent authority in special circumstances and reasons to be recorded in writing. 10. Method of recruitment, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, deputation, transfer and the percentage of posts to be filled in by various methods i) 60% by transfer ii) 40% by direct recruitment on regular basis or by recruitment on contract basis as the case may be. The contract employees will get emoluments as given in Col. 15-A and will be governed by service 2025:HHC:29525 - 5 - conditions as specified in the said column. 11. In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer, grade from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made. By transfer from amongst the Senior Assistants of H.P. Tourism & Civil Aviation Deptt. Who are Graduate from a recognized University with 02 years of service as Senior Assistant on seniority/option basis. 8. Counsel for the petitioners has tried to argue on the proposition as built up before the Erstwhile Tribunal that they had forgone their promotion as Superintendents Grade-II from the post of Senior Assistants only on this understanding that they would be eligible for promotion as Inspectors, in view of the Notification dated 14.10.2004, which had given them authorization, to inspect Hotel premises, as such, at par with the Hotel Inspectors. 9. A specific response of the State to the said pleadings was that petitioner No.1 had not been recommended for promotion and she had opted for promotion as Inspector (Hotels), while referring to letter dated 31.03.2011. Similarly, reference was made to letter 2025:HHC:29525 - 6 - dated 26.04.2011 regarding petitioner No.2 that he had not opted for promotion as Inspector (Hotels) and was not recommended for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II. 10. A perusal of the said communication’s would go on to show that there was no such reservation made by the present petitioners, rather it was their preference, as such, that they did not want to be promoted as Superintendents Grade-II. The basic reasons apparently would be clear from the letter dated 31.03.2011, (Annexure R-1) and letter dated 26.04.2011. The relevant portion read as under: Letter dated 31.03.2011 “उपरोᲦ िवषय पर िनदेशक, पयᭅटन एवं नागᳯरक उ᲻यन िवभाग, िह०ᮧ० िशमला-9 के पᮢ सं᭎या: 1-1/89-पयᭅटन 11-14827 ᳰदनांक 07-02-2011 (छायाᮧित संलᲨ) के संदभᭅ मᱶ िनवेदन है ᳰक मᱹ अधीᭃक ᮰ेणी-11 के ᳯरᲦ पद पर पदो᳖ित हेतु इ᭒छुक नहᱭ ᱠँ। अतः तदानुसार मेरा िवक᭨प समझा जाए। आपसे अनुरोध है ᳰक गेरे िवक᭨प को मु᭎यालय को भेजने कᳱ कृ पा करᱶ। Letter dated 26.04.2011 आपके पᮢ सं᭎या 1-1/98- पयᭅटन 11-14823 ᳰदनाक 7 फरवरी 2011 और मेरा ᮧाथᭅना पᮢ ᳰदनाकः 2.04.2011 को जारी रखते ᱟए िवषय उपरोᲦ के संदभᭅ मᱶ मुझे यह कहना है ᳰक सुकं ती फौिसल पाकᭅ मᱶ अधीᭃक ᮰ेणी ि᳇तीय, आरजपिᮢत का पद ᭭वीकृ त एवं ᳯरᲦ ᱟआ है उᲦ पद के िलए मै इ᭒छुक नहᱭ ᱠँ। अतः महोदय कᳱ सेवा मᱶ सूचनाथᭅ ᮧिषत है।” 11. The basic reasons, as such, is that having been appointed as Superintendents Grade-II, they had to 2025:HHC:29525 - 7 - be moved out of the District and it is apparent that on account for their own convenience they had opted out for promotion and subsequently, after a period of 5 years sought consideration for promotion by filing application before the Tribunal in which directions were issued initially on 02.12.2016 to consider their representations. 12. The rejection was then accordingly done on 19.06.2017, (Annexure A-12), wherein also the stand, as such, was the requirement of Graduation along with two years service as Senior Assistant was the requirement as per the amended Rules and the petitioners thus were not liable to be considered keeping in view the fact that petitioner No.1 is only Higher Secondary Part II and petitioner No.2 is Matriculate. 13. Even otherwise as per un-amended Rules of 1998 also, the post could only be filled-up 100% by direct recruitment, as per Rule 10, so in both ways they were not liable to be considered. 14. Thus the challenge to the amendment of Rules is also without any basis as at the time of entering the service, they knew that they were not liable to be promoted as Inspector (Hotels) as the source of 2025:HHC:29525 - 8 - recruitment was by way of direct recruitment. Thus, even the challenge to the amended Rules of 2012 is without any basis. 15. It is settled principle that the service conditions would be governed by Rules and therefore, having been entered into service with open eyes, the petitioners attempt to challenge the 2012 Rules by virtue of the amendment is also without any basis as they had no vested right which has been taken away. Fall back on Clause 8 also would be of no help, as apparently the said Clause will apply in case of promotees whereby, the educational qualification is not to be kept in mind. Counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the fact that the Senior Assistants and Inspector (Hotels) are drawing pay at the same level and, therefore, it is not a case of promotion and only of transfer and it is only a case of the assignment of work having different work profile’s. 16. Reliance placed upon the recommendations made by the Department vide letter dated 28.01.2017, (Annexure A-11), is without any basis since again reference had been made to CWP No.3588 of 2012 2025:HHC:29525 - 9 - which the Tribunal has rightly distinguished on the ground that the same pertained to the case of promotion of Block Development Officer, who had been debarred from promotion avenues by doing subsequent amendment. As noticed above, the petitioners even at the time of recruitment as per un-amended Rules were also not eligible, since the post had to be filled-up 100% by way of direct recruitment. 17. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dismissed as there is no illegality or perversity in the order of the Tribunal. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 28th August, 2025 [himani/bhardwaj]