1 ( 2025:HHC:6389 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 3166 of 2025 Decided on: 12.03.2025 Virender Singh ...…..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Kr. Virender Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.I.N.Mehta, Sr. Additional Advocate General, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral ) The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the notification dated 21.09.2017 annexure P-1 and order dated 09.09.2024 annexure P-10 may be declared null and void in the eyes of law as per the submissions made hereinabove. (ii) That the notification dated 20.08.2011 i.e. R & P Rules for the post of Statistical Assistant Class III (Non-Gazetted) 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:6389 ) Ministerial Services be declared valid operative and applicable as on the date of appointment of the petitioners these rules exists” 2. A perusal of the petition goes to indicate that the petitioner was eligible for being promoted to the higher post i.e. Statistical Assistant Class III (Non-Gazetted) vide notification dated 20.8.2011 but the said notification was superseded by another notification dated 21.09.2017 which for the time being made the petitioner ineligible for further promotion for want of educational qualification. The petitioner would claim that the action of the respondents is bad in law as his chances and avenues of promotion have been defeated. 3. However, we find no merit in such contention, for it is well settled that the chances of promotion do not confer any cause of action upon a person to approach the court. It is only when right is defeated or sought to be defeated, that one can come to the court. 4. As regards the amendment of the rules by the respondents, it is more than settled that the questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/ abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy which is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, of course, subject to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or 3 ( 2025:HHC:6389 ) avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its view for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. 5. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and others versus Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others, (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 632. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations, we find no merit in this petition and same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) Judge 12th March, 2025. (yogesh/pankaj)