IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10808 of 2023 Date of Decision: 18.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Baldev Ram Raghuwanshi …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. P.D. Nanda and Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in terms of R&P Rules from the date he has completed five years of service i.e. 22.06.2020, with all consequential benefits; (ii) That the promotion of respondents No. 3 and 4 may kindly be quashed and set aside, as the promotion of respondent No.4 is against the post, which is not meant for Graduate Assistant Engineer and the respondent No.3 being junior to the petitioner.” 2. Though, by way of filing reply, aforesaid reliefs of the petitioner have been seriously opposed by the respondents, but 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 learned counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner on the analogy of office order dated 12.07.1996 passed by Secretary-cum- Chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Housing Board, Shimla in the case of persons namely, Sh. H.L. Sharma, Sh. Ghanshyam Mishra and Sh. Rakesh Sharma. 3. Mr. Kush Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit reveals that the precise grouse of the petitioner is that some of the Assistant Engineers, who had not passed requisite departmental examination, stand promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. However, in the case of the petitioner passing of said departmental examination is being insisted upon. 5. Careful perusal of the reply filed by the respondents nowhere disputes factum with regard to promotion of persons, as detailed hereinabove, without their having passed departmental examination, but it has been stated that relaxation was granted to aforesaid persons pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court and subsequently they also passed departmental examination before 3 regular promotion. Since persons, as detailed hereinabove, were also granted ad-hoc promotion to the post of Executive Engineers, this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner on the analogy of office order dated 12.07.1996 expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant judgment, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. In the aforesaid terms, the present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 18,2025 (shankar)