IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.169 of 2024 Date of Decision: 2.9.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vidya Singh Negi and Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State. Mr. Aditya Chouhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioners herein, who are aggrieved of order dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure P-9), whereby prayer made by them for promotion to the post of Principal against those incumbents who have not joined on their placement as Principal (School Cadre) from the date they have forgone their promotion/placement and from the date vacancies were available in the category of Scheduled Tribes, came to be rejected, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein following reliefs: “a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to promote the petitioners as Principals (School Cadre) from the date when some of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Lecturers had forgone their promotions/placements and vacancies fall vacant in the category of Scheduled Tribes with all consequential benefits as still there are posts of Principals (School Cadre) are lying vacant in the ST category in different schools. b) That the respondents may be directed to give placement to the petitioners as they are fully eligible to be placed as Principal.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner is that bare perusal of order dated 30.11.2023, whereby representations having been filed by the petitioner, came to be rejected, nowhere suggests any application of mind, rather respondents without verifying factum with regard to pending litigation, if any, proceeded to reject the representations filed by the petitioners. She further argued that though as Recruitment & Promotion Rules, post of Principal, being Class-I Gazetted, is to be filled up by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, but requisition is to be sent by the department. If it is so, no wrong, if any, can be said to have be committed by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission in as much as not granting promotions to the petitioners as well as similarly situate persons. 3. Having carefully perused order dated 30.11.2023, thereby rejecting representations of the petitioners this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that 3 authority concerned has acted in hot haste manner. There is no discussion that why petitioners herein cannot be promoted as Principal against such incumbents, who have not joined as Principal School Cadre, from the date they have forgone their promotion/ placement. Interestingly reply filed by the respondents, if read in entirety, clearly suggests that there is no pending litigation. 4. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of paras 2 and 3 of the reply, which read as under: 2. That this case was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 04.01.2024 and on this day the Hon'ble Court passed the following directions: "3. The respondents-State are directed to deal with the following points:- (i) Whether any litigation, in which the interim orders have been passed, not to make promotions to the post of Principal [School Cadre], exists as on day or not? (ii) In case, any litigation, there is no stay, qua promotions then, whether the respondents can resort to backdoor method placement(s), when the Recruitment and Promotion Rules provide for filling posts of Principal [School Cadre] by promotion from Headmasters: Lecturers in ratio of 50:50? 4. Let these aspects be clarified in the reply." 3. That with regard to queries raised by the Hon'ble Court vide para 3 (i) of the orders passed on 04.01.2024, the following is submitted: (i) That presently there is no litigation pending in which the interim orders have been passed not to 4 make promotions to the post of Principal (School Cadre) (ii) That earlier the cases related to seniority dispute between direct and adhoc lecturers and service/seniority benefits to the Ex-Serviceman were pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and due to pendency of these cases the regular promotion could not be made by the Department for a long time. However, for smooth running of work and time being arrangements the placements were made purely on the basis of tentative seniority subject to the fitment at the time of DPC. However, all the parameters will be considered while regularizing these placements. Department of Personnel and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission shall also be consulted.” 5. Neither litigation, if any, is pending on account of which prayer of the petitioners cannot be considered nor there is any stay qua the promotion. Admittedly, petitioners herein being below in seniority cannot straightaway claim promotion to the post of Principal but their precise prayer in the representation is that they may be promoted against the post of Principal, which have not been filled up on account of non-joining of some of the lecturers, who have forgone their promotion. 6. Having taken note of precise grouse of the petitioner vis- à-vis factual matrix, as detailed herein above, this Court is persuaded to conclude that authority below, while deciding the representation of the petitioners, has not bothered to ascertain whether on account of 5 non-joining of some of the eligible candidates against the post of the Principals, petitioners herein, who are otherwise in line of promotion, can be granted promotion or not, rather on the grounds, which are otherwise non-existent, has proceeded to reject their representation. Impugned order dated 30.11.2023, being totally non-speaking deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and order dated 30.11.2023, is quashed and set-aside with further direction to the respondents to decide the case/representation of the petitioner afresh taking note of observations made herein above as well as factum that number of teachers have been promoted recently to the post of Principal by way of placement. Needful in terms of instant order shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 2, 2025 manjit