IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.: 7546 of 2020 Decided on : 13.03.2025 Tarbiz Kumar. .…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General, Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief(s):- (i) That the act of the respondents in ignoring/denying the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Deputy Director/Deputy Controller may kindly be declared unconstitutional, discriminatory, unreasonable 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5934 ) unwarranted, invalid and unsustainable in the eyes of law. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to promote the applicant to the post of Deputy Director/Deputy Controller against the vacancy of Joint Director/Joint Controller on the analogy Shri Sita Ram Sharma and Shri Vijay Kumar Walia by providing the benefit of relaxation in the R &P rules on the analogy of Shri Baldev Raj, Shri Padam Singh Kanwar and Shri Suneel Kumar Angra w.e.f the date, the post of Joint Director/Joint Controller fell vacant, alongwith all consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner initially was appointed as Junior Auditor in the office of respondent No. 2 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Section Officer on 08.12.1988. Petitioner was granted next promotion to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant Controller (Class-I-Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs. 15600- 39100+5400 Grade Pay, vide notification dated 03.07.2017. Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2019 and hence was retired from the services. It is averred that one Anil Kumar, who was junior to the petitioner in the grade of Junior Auditor was promoted as Assistant Director/Assistant Collector before the petitioner. Petitioner had 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5934 ) submitted a representation dated 22.01.2018. The same was accepted and in final seniority list circulated by respondent No. 2 showing seniority position as on 01.01.2018. Petitioner was placed at serial No. 5 over and above Sh. Anil Kumar. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that next promotional post after Assistant Director/Assistant Controller was that of Deputy Director/Deputy Controller for which the department has framed R & P Rules. As per these rules, the post of Deputy Director/Deputy Controller is to be filled 100% by promotion from amongst the Assistant Director/Assistant Controller (LAD) having three years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade, failing which by promotion amongst the Assistant Director/Assistant Controller (LAD) having six years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, combined as Assistant Director/Assistant Controller (LAD) and Section Officer 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5934 ) (LAD) out of which two years services as Assistant Director/Assistant Controller (LAD) shall be essential. 4. Since, the petitioner was not fulfilling the criteria, he approached the respondents for relaxation and the benefit of relaxation was not extended to him, hence this petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 5. Noticeably, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner after his superannuation. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria prescribed in R & P Rules for being considered to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director/Deputy Controller. It is more than settled that the right to be promoted is not available to any government employee. It is only the right of consideration for promotion that can be enforced, that too, when a person is fulfilling the requisite criteria. 7. Since, the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite criteria he had sought relaxation in the rules. 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:5934 ) In my considered view, the relaxation in rules again cannot be said to be a right. No malafide has been either alleged or proved against respondents. Respondents being employer have every right to reject the request for relaxation. 8. Further, no case of discrimination has been made out by the petitioner. 9. In result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 13th March, 2025 Judge (sushma)