2025:HHC:44255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8174 of 2023 Decided on: 18th December, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vinod Kumar Sood and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) To issue necessary writ, direction, or order in the nature thereof directing the respondents for stepping up of pay of petitioners from the date when their junior started getting higher salary and to remove pay anomalies and grant them pay/salary at par with their juniors. (ii) To issue necessary writ, direction, or order in the nature thereof directing the respondents to fix quota for the promotion of Principal amongst Lecturer/PGT. (iii) To issue necessary direction, order or writ thereby directing the respondents not to make amended Rules applicable in the case of petitioners as their appointment was prior to 2010 as well as a common 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:44255 seniority prepared/maintained Graduate Teachers subject/stream.” 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that they were appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) prior to 26.04.2010 and were thereafter promoted as Lecturers in different streams. Prior to 26.04.2010, one common seniority list of all TGTs irrespective of their streams/ subjects was being maintained by the respondent- Department for the purpose of promotion to the posts of Headmaster/Lecturer. Petitioners allege that their juniors in the common seniority list were promoted prior to them. Hence, they seek stepping-up of their pay from the date their alleged juniors started getting higher salary, for removing the stated pay anomaly. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. The relief as prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted to them. The claim of the petitioners is not only barred by the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence, but can also not be granted to them in view of Neelam Kaushal Versus State of H.P. & others2, which was disposed of with following directions:- 2 CWP(T) No.14932 of 2008, decided on 26.7.2010 3 2025:HHC:44255 “13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is disposed of with the following directions: a. That no promotions made prior to 26th April 2010 shall be affected by the outcome of this petition. However, since the promotions made after 26th April,2010 were made expressly subject to the result of this petition they shall abide by the following directions. b. That henceforth and w.e.f 26th April,2010 before making any promotions to the post of Lecturers or Head Masters an option shall be sought from the concerned employee. c. Once an employee gives an option he/she will not be permitted to change the option. d. Once an employee opts to be promoted as Lecturer/ Head Master he can not claim that he should be considered for the other post. e. The Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the Director of Higher Education and Director of Elementary Education i.e respondents No. 1 to 3 are made personally responsible for compliance of these directions in letter and spirit. f. All promotions, if any, made after 26th April,2010 shall be reviewed and after seeking options of the employees in terms of the aforesaid directions the promotions shall be made.” In terms of above decision, promotions made prior to 26.04.2010 were not to be affected by the outcome of the decision. The promotions made after 26.04.2010, however, were to abide by the directions issued in the said case. Hon’ble Court directed the respondents that w.e.f. 26.04.2010, before making any promotions to the post of Lecturers or Headmasters, option had to be sought from the concerned employee; Once the employee gives an option, he be not permitted to change the same and once an employee 4 2025:HHC:44255 opts to be promoted either as Lecturer or Headmaster, he later on could not claim for his consideration for promotion to the other category. Hon’ble Court further directed the respondents to review all promotions made after 26.04.2010 by seeking options of the employees in terms of the directions and make promotions accordingly. Admittedly, the petitioners had exercised their options for promotion to the post of Lecturer. Respondent- State issued a notification on 30.07.2013, bringing into force the ‘Himachal Pradesh, Higher Education Department, Principal (School Cadre) Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion (Third Amendment) Rules, 2013’. In terms thereof, Headmasters with three years regular service were made eligible for promotion to the post of Principal, whereas eight years’ regular service was required for a Lecturer to become eligible for promotion to the post of Principal. Headmasters and Lecturers were the two feeder categories for promotion to the post of Principal with 50% share each. Therefore, in case the juniors of the petitioners had been promoted as Headmasters on the basis of their option and resultantly stole march over the petitioners, the petitioners cannot claim themselves to be their seniors in perpetuity. In the peculiar facts and 5 2025:HHC:44255 circumstances, the said juniors by opting for a particular branch of promotion, had marched ahead. There is no challenge to the Recruitment & Promotion Rules in the petition. Promotions of so called juniors have already been protected in terms of Neelam Kaushal2. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioners, cannot be granted to them. This writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh