IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1751 of 2024 Date of Decision: 9.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Non-Medical) at Government Middle School Sandora, u/c Government Senior Secondary School Kosri, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, ought to have been promoted to the post of Head Master on account of his being Senior Most in the seniority list of TGT (Non-Medical). 2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner herein was initially appointed as TGT (Non-Medical) on 28.8.1998 and since then, has been serving the department in various schools. On 26.3.2022, - 2 - respondent-department convened meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion of TGTs against the post of Head Masters. petitioner herein gave his option to be promoted against the post of Head Master, which was further sent by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 vide communication dated 26.3.2022, but fact remains that name of the petitioner was not considered for the reason that at the relevant time, TGTs only upto seniority No. 6984 were promoted, whereas the seniority No. of the petitioner is 7310. 3. Vide communication dated 18.7.2023 (Annexure P-2) petitioner represented respondent No.3 for his promotion and in turn respondent No.3 submitted the ACRs of the petitioner to respondent No.2 being left out case, but same is pending with the respondent No.2 since July 2023. 4. Since no action was taken by respondent No.2, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 7724 of 2023, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 13.10.2023, thereby directing the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner within four weeks. 5. Since despite there being court order, nothing was done petitioner herein preferred COPC No. 477 of 2023, which again came to be disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2023, with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner within four weeks. - 3 - 6. Respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 7.12.2023, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner failed to submit his option within the stipulated period i.e. upto 20.2.2023, whereas fact is that option from the petitioner was obtained on 26.3.2022 (Annexure P-1). 7. In nutshell, case of the petitioner that he being TGT having qualification of B.Sc. is otherwise not required to give option for the reason that option, in terms of instructions dated 3.12.2014, is only required to be given by such of the TGTs, who have more than one promotional channel i.e. lecturer and headmaster, whereas petitioner, who does not possess requisite qualification for being promoted to the post of lecturer can only be considered for promotion to the post of headmaster. 8. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, wherein facts as have been taken note herein above, have been not disputed, rather claim of the petitioner has been attempted to be refuted on the ground that in terms of instructions dated 3.12.2014, he was required to exercise option, but since petitioner failed to exercise option, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while not considering promotion to the post of headmaster. 9. Though it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the parties that petitioner having seniority No. 7310 had opted for promotion as headmaster in the year 2022, but at the - 4 - relevant time, he was not promoted to the post in question for the reason that at that time, TGTs only upto seniority No.6984 were promoted. True, it is that subsequently, petitioner did not exercise option, but that cannot be a ground for the respondents to not consider case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of headmaster. 10. At this stage, it may be apt to take note of instructions dated 3.12.2014, which reads as under: “(i) For the post having more than one promotional channel, the option will invariably be called for in every calendar year and officers/officials in zone of consideration and holding the feeder post will have to opt for one of the channels of promotion of his/her choice, which shall be final and irrevocable. (ii) Once a candidate is promoted as per the option exercised, such candidate will neither be entitled for consideration for promotion in the other channel nor will be allowed to withdraw the option, so exercised and his/her option shall be treated as final and irrevocable for entire service career.” 11. Having carefully perused aforesaid instructions, this court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that option is only to be exercised by such of TGTs, who have more than one promotional channel. Since petitioner on account of his having not possessed requisite qualification i.e. M.Sc. is not eligible for promotion to the post of lecturer, he being B.Sc. can only be promoted against the post of headmaster. If it is so, there is otherwise no occasion, if any, for the petitioner to exercise option as is being claimed by the respondents in terms of instructions dated - 5 - 3.12.2014. Pleadings further reveal that person junior to the petitioner in seniority list stands promoted to the post of headmaster but on flimsy grounds, as have been taken note herein above, rightful claim of the petitioner is being defeated for no fault of him. Since it is apparent that on account of petitioner’s having not possessed requisite qualification for the post of lecturer, there is no requirement, if any, for him to exercise option, prayer made by the petitioner for promotion to the post of headmaster on account of his having possessed degree of B.Sc. is required to be considered by the respondents without any further delay. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 7.12.2023 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set-aside and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of headmaster without insisting upon him to give option, which he is otherwise not required to do in terms of instructions dated 3.12.2014, expeditiously from the date his juniors have been promoted to the post of Head Master. Since petitioner is fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of instant order shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. 13. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. December 9, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge