2025:HHC:17286 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 2254 of 2019 Date of decision : 02.06.2025. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Negi, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.3. Mr. K. B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): Heard. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive relief:- “That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- (Civil) under Clause 11 (ii) of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules from the date he passed his Diploma in Civil Engineering.” 3. The petitioner had been working as Surveyor in the Department of Public Works, Himachal Pradesh on regular basis w.e.f. 18.7.2007. The petitioner was a diploma holder in Civil Engineering. 4. The post of Surveyor is a feeder category post for the promotional post of Junior Engineer. Clause 11 (ii) of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Class-III (Non-Gazetted) in the Department of Public Works, Himachal Pradesh provides for a quota of 2.5% for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) from amongst the Surveyors having three years diploma in civil engineering or its equivalent from institution/university, duly recognized by the Central or the State Government with three years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service, rendered, if any, in the grade. 5. Being eligible in aforesaid quota, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have wrongfully -3- denied him the right of consideration for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. 6. The respondents have set up a plea that the petitioner had obtained the diploma in civil engineering through distance education, which is not a recognized mode. It is the further the case of the respondents that the institution from which, the petitioner has obtained diploma was not a recognized institution. On such premise, the respondents have sought to defend their action. 7. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner placed on record certain additional documents, which led this Court to pass the following order on 10.3.2025:- “Heard for some time. The petitioner, by way of CMP No.1109 of 2022, has placed on record certain additional documents that includes a clarification issued by Deputy Secretary (I&PH), Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 4th December, 2018 and the promotion orders of two similarly situated incumbents viz Shri Inder Singh and Shir Tilak Raj, sons of Shri Ram Lok. Learned Advocate General to clarify the position firstly, with respect to communication dated 4th December, 2018 and secondly, as to why the petitioner has been ignored for promotion when similarly situated persons, as noticed above, have been promoted under the same Recruitment -4- and Promotion Rules. Learned Advocate General seeks time for clarification. Let the clarification be filed by way of affidavit of competent Authority. List on 27th March, 2025.” 8. In compliance, the Engineer-in-Chief, HP PWD has filed the affidavit dated 20.5.2025. The earlier stand of the respondents that the diploma held by petitioner was not from a recognized institution has been reiterated. It has specifically been mentioned that the petitioner had obtained the diploma from Janardan Rai Nagar, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, which was not recognized either by the AICTE or the UGC. 9. As regards the allegation of discrimination vis-à- vis S/Sh. Inder Singh and Tilak Raj, it has been stated that both of these incumbents had obtained their respective diplomas in civil engineering from the same institution in the year 2009-2010 respectively and since, all the incumbents who were enrolled upto academic session 2007-08 through distance learning mode have been promoted, therefore and S/Sh. Inder Singh and Tilak Raj were also promoted. -5- 10. Noticeably, the petitioner had also taken admission in Janardan Rai Nagar, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University in the academic session 2007-08. Thus, on facts there is no difference between the case of the petitioner and that of S/Sh. Inder Singh and Tilak Raj. That being so, non consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) against the quota reserved for diploma holders is clearly arbitrary and antithetic to Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Once the State Government has decided to consider the diploma holders, having obtained diploma through distance mode of education by enrolling themselves upto academic session 2007-08, the petitioner could not have been discriminated and he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) immediately after he became eligible for promotion in terms of Clause 11 (ii) of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. 11. Though, the respondents by way of affidavit 20.5.2025 have mentioned that the petitioner has also been promoted as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 27.7.2019, however, said fact will not disentitle the petitioner from the -6- claim as made in the petition for the reason that his promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 27.7.2019 has not been notified by considering him in the quota meant for diploma holders, rather he has been promoted against the quota meant for ITI holder surveyors. 12. In result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), under Clause 11 (ii) of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), immediately after acquisition of eligibility by the petitioner against the available vacancy. The respondents shall complete the entire exercise within eight weeks from today. 13. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 2nd June, 2025 (kck)