( 2025:HHC:39368 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.499 of 2025 Decided on: 19th November, 2025 State of H.P and another .......Appellants Versus Sandeep Kumar Verma ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr.Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Manish Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The consideration in the present appeal sought by the State is to the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 04.03.2024, whereby CWPOA No.904 of 2019 titled as Sandeep Kumar vs. State of H.P and others was allowed and the writ-petitioner was held entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Law Officer, on acquiring academic qualification of LL.B Degree with his earlier requisite length of service in the year 2009. The DPC meeting had been convened on 25.10.2010, therefore, the candidature of the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:39368 ) 2 writ-petitioner for promotion to the post of Law Officer had been accepted with all consequential benefits, including seniority and monetary benefits by applying the Recruitment and Promotion Rules existing on the said date, which are of the year 1996. The calculation of length of service at that point of time was accordingly seen. 2. The learned Single Judge had primarily placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in T.Valsan (dead) through Legal Representatives and others vs. K.Kanagaraj and other (2023) 8 SCC 614, to come to the said conclusion and had kept in mind the fact that in the said judgment the earlier view in Shailendra Dania vs. S.P. Dubey (2007) 5 SCC 535, had been duly considered. According to the learned Single Judge, the interpretation of Rule was to be determined on case to case basis, and thus keeping in view the Rules in question, it was held that the same did not prescribe that the educational qualification with five years regular service or combined continuous ad-hoc service was to be there, after obtaining the degree in question. 3. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently tried to point out from the Rules, which would govern the case of the direct recruitments to contend that the requirement was ( 2025:HHC:39368 ) 3 of three years experience as a practicing Advocate and, therefore, the professional degree of law was the requirement for promotion to the post of Law Officer and the experience thereafter was to be counted. The learned Single Judge was accordingly not justified in granting the benefit by taking into consideration the service period, prior to the acquisition of the law degree in 2009, as per the case of the State. 4. We are unable to agree with the argument, which is raised by the Counsel for the State. It is not disputed that the Rule in question, as such, which would have to be considered, has duly been considered by the learned Single Judge. Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Department of Irrigation and Public Health Legal Assistants (Class-III Non- Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1996 relates to direct recruitments. The Rule in question, as noticed is the Rule 11, which provides for promotion to be done from amongst Senior Assistants/Senior Scale Stenographers/ Statistical Assistants and the educational qualification, as such, was prescribed in Rule 7, which was common, which is a professional degree in law secured from a recognized university. ( 2025:HHC:39368 ) 4 5. In Rule 7, a reference has also been made to the said educational qualification in column No.7 for direct recruits and, therefore, merely because the reference has been made for the direct recruits for the same educational qualification, this principle, as such, of three years experience as practicing Advocate and the subsequent three years experience on account of having practiced as an Advocate, could not necessarily be incorporated in Rule 11, which provides the benefit of consideration by way of promotion to in-service candidates, who were law degree holders. 6. Perusal of the Rule would go on to show that there is specific distinction made after the amendment on 18.08.2006, wherein the Senior Assistants/Senior Scale Stenographers/Statistical Assistants, as such, were given lesser period of only five years regular service to get the benefit for the promotion, whereas, the junior cadre i.e. Clerks/Junior Assistants/Steno-Typist and Junior Scale Stenographers would require 10 years of experience, provided that they had the law degree. 7. The basic purpose apparently, is that the service period rendered on the said posts has to be considered and the said Rule no-where provides that the experience has to be ( 2025:HHC:39368 ) 5 counted, after obtaining the law degree, which is the minimum educational qualification for the post of Law Officer. If the Rule does not prescribe so, the judgment in T.Valsan’s case, would be directly applicable, wherein the Apex Court while coming to the said conclusion has held that nothing else can be read into the Rules. 7. The judgment of the Apex Court in Indian Airlines Limited and others vs. S. Gopalakrishnan (2001) 2 SCC 362, relied upon by the State would be of not much help, considering the fact that a specific Rule, mainly item No.6 was taken into consideration by the Apex Court and accordingly it was held that the experience will be computed after the date of acquiring the necessary qualification. In the absence of any such stipulation in Rule 11, the same cannot be read into the same. For reference, the relevant amended Rule read as under:- “(a) For the existing provisions against Col. No. 11, the following shall be substituted- (i) By promotion from amongst the Senior Assistants Senior Scale Stenographers/Statistical Assistants subject to fulfilling the educational qualification prescribed in Col. No. 7 with 5 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade. (ii) By promotion from amongst the (Clerical cadre (which includes Clerks/Junior Assistants/Steno typist and Junior Scale Stenographers) subject to ( 2025:HHC:39368 ) 6 fulfilling the educational qualification prescribed in Col No. 7 with 10 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade.” 8. Learned counsel for the State has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Challa Jaya Bhaskar and others vs. Thungathurthi Surender and others (2010) 13 SCC 348. Perusal of the said judgment would go on to show that Rule in question, as such, has neither been reproduced and rather an observation has come that without going into the details of the said Rule, the said judgment was rendered mainly, keeping in view the earlier position laid down in N. Suresh Nathan vs. Union of India 1992 Sup. (1) SCC 584 and Shailender Dhania (supra). 9. In T. Valsan (supra), the observations in paras 24 and 25 have come forth by placing reliance on the judgment in M.B. Joshi vs. Satish Kumar Pandey 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 419, regarding principle of past practice that it is an incentive, as such, to acquire a higher degree and put yourself in a fast lane in the lesser number of years of service. 10. Resultantly, keeping in view the said principle of law, we do not find any reasons, as such, to interfere in the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, ( 2025:HHC:39368 ) 7 which does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is based on the binding precedents of law of the Apex Court. 11. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) November 19, 2025 Judge (naveen)