1 2025:HHC:13791 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 737, 727, 3777, 4043, 4096, 6313, 6431 & 16641 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 737 of 2024 Pradeep Singh & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents 2. CWP No. 727 of 2024 Pratap Singh Ranaut & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents 3. CWP No. 3777 of 2024 Ajay Kumar & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents 4. CWP No. 4043 of 2024 Sunil Singh & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents 5. CWP No. 5096 of 2024 Vijay Parmar & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent 6. CWP No. 6313 of 2024 Sarita Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents 7. CWP No. 6431 of 2024 Sunita Kumari Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents 8. CWP No. 16641 of 2024 Narender Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus 2 2025:HHC:13791 State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner(s): Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. Anshul Jairath & Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos. 737, 727 & 16641 of 2024. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 4043 of 2024. Mr. K.S.Banyal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 5096 of 2024. Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Mr. Saurabh Ahluwalia & Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur, Advocates, for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos. 3777, 6313 & 6431 of 2024. For the respondent(s): Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. _______________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Since common questions of facts are involved in all the above- captioned cases, this Court heard them together and the same are now being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. Though same and similar prayer has been sought by the petitioners in these petitions, but for the sake of brevity, prayer made by the petitioners in CWP No. 737 of 2024 is being reproduced hereinbelow: 3 2025:HHC:13791 “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned action of the Respondents, whereby the Respondents have not convened the Proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Principal (School Cadre), as a resultant effect of which the Petitioners have been denied Regular Promotion to the post of Principal (School Cadre) from the date they became eligible for promotion, being patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides the same being in violation to the settled law of the land. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to convene the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Principal (School Cadre), as per the repeated instructions issued by the State Government, and the Respondents be further directed to Promote the petitioners from the date they became eligible for the same or in alternate from the date the Petitioners have been granted the officiating charge of Principal (School Cadre) as has been done with the Head Masters who have been granted regular promotions from the date they were granted the Officiating Charge on the post of Principal, along with all consequential financial benefits. 3. 3. Before the cases at hand could be heard and decided on their own merit, learned Additional Advocate General has made available communication dated 09.05.2025 issued under the signatures of Under Secretary (Education), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby afore authority on the directions of Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh apprised the office of learned Advocate General that on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the 4 2025:HHC:13791 Lecturer(s) School cadre and Headmasters, who were placed in the post of Principal (School Cadre) w.e.f 2017 to 2023, have been promoted to the post of Principal on regular basis. Respondents also annexed notification dated 08.05.2025 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh with the aforesaid communication, perusal whereof reveals that petitioners herein alongwith other similarly situate persons have been promoted to the post of Principal (School Cadre) from the dates mentioned in the notification supra on regular basis. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General states that on account of aforesaid developments, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petitions. 5. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as notification, which are taken on record, this Court is persuaded to agree with the submission made by Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. 6. Though at this stage, Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioners, attempted to argue that relief, as prayed for, has not been granted complete in all respects because petitioners herein are actually entitled to consequential benefits from the date, they assumed charge of the 5 2025:HHC:13791 post of Principal, but they have been granted such benefits on notional basis. 7. However, having carefully perused averments contained in the petitioner, especially relief clause vis-a-vis notification dated 08.05.2025, this Court is not persuaded to agree Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Precisely, the relief as has been granted in all the petitions is with regard to grant of promotion to the post of Principal, which has been granted, as far as entitlement of consequential benefits from the date petitioners assumed charge against the post of Principal is concerned, this Court sees no necessity to go into that question in the instant proceedings, rather for that purpose, petitioners are always at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if so advised. 8. 8. Consequently, in view above, present petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of their surviving grievances, notwithstanding any observations made in the instant judgment. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge