( 2025:HHC:16741 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.677 of 2020 Decided on: 28.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Parvesh Kumar & Others ...Petitioners Versus State of HP & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. Yes. For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. Anshul Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma & Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Seema Sharma & Mr. Balvinder Singh Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3-HRTC. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Parvesh Kumar and four others, who are working as Technician Grade-II, are claiming promotion/appointment as Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II], have come up before this Court seeking following reliefs:- “I. That the Advertisement No.6/16 dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 2 - 10.10.2016 whereby the respondent-Corporation has initiated the recruitment process for the appointment/selection of Junior Technical Officer (Foreman Grade-II) may kindly be quashed and set aside. II. That the respondent-Corporation may further be directed to promote/appoint the applicants on regular basis against 15% posts of Junior Technical Officer (Foreman Grade-II) having Diploma in Mechanical/Automobile Engineering.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case of the petitioners is that they joined services as a Junior Technicians in respondent No.2-Corporation in the years 1996 to 2000, thereafter they were promoted to posts of Junior Technician Grade-II in the Corporation, during the period from 2007 to 2014. The petitioners also possessed three years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering [Lateral Entry/Automobile Engineering] also. Based on the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical/Automobile Engineering, the petitioners submitted representation to respondent No.2- Corporation for giving promotion to them in the promotional cadre of Foreman. The representation submitted by the petitioners was responded to by the Respondent-Corporation on 02.12.2015 [Annexure A-7] ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 3 - on the ground that there is no provision/relaxation for Diploma Holders for promotion to post of Foreman in the existing Rules. However, it was stated that in the proposed Rules, 15% posts of Foreman Grade-II will be filled-up by limited direct recruitment from amongst Technicians having Degree/Diploma in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering or its equivalent and as soon as these Rules are modified, the necessary action will be taken. It is the case of petitioners that instead of notifying the Rules in terms of the proposal by inserting 15% quota by LDR for Technicians having Degree/Diploma in Automobile/Mechanical Engineering or equivalent on 02.12.2015 [Annexure A-7], the Respondent-Corporation had advertised 44 posts of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] on contract basis on 10.10.2016 [Annexure A-9] which was alleged to be unfair, arbitrary and unsustainable. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND THIS COURT: 3. Petitioners filed an Original Application No.6126 of 2016 before State Administrative Tribunal ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 4 - in which notices were issued to the respondents on 23.11.2016 with directions to file reply. Pursuant to the directions of the State Administrative Tribunal, the Respondents No.2 & 3-Himachal Road Transport Corporation filed a reply-affidavit dated 26.12.2016 of Regional Manager (Legal) HRTC Shimla. Respondent No.1-State adopted the reply filed by Respondent No.2 & 3-Corporation. Rejoinder was filed by the petitioners in July, 2017. Upon abolition of State Administrative Tribunal in December, 2019, the matter was transferred to this Court and was registered as CWPOA No.677 of 2020. Upon listing of the matter before this Court on 01.12.2020 the matter was admitted and thereafter taken up on various dates. STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3-HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT 4. Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit of Respondent- Corporation indicates that the State Government notified the Authority i.e. Himachal Pradesh City & Bus Stands Management & Development Authority, Act 1999. After the enactment of Act of 1999, the ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 5 - Authority came into existence on 01.04.2000. It is further averred that in order to discharge its functions the Authority decided to requisition the staff from HRTC on secondment basis and from other Government departments. Para 1 of Reply-Affidavit indicates that the Authority in its meeting held on 07.11.2015, approved creation of 44 posts of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] in various trades on contract basis. After creation of posts and approval of Recruitment & Promotion Regulations for the post of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II), the Authority [HPCBSM&DA] addressed a letter to the Respondent-Corporation-HRTC on 19.12.2015 [Annexure R-I] to act as recruiting agency for filling these posts by issuing the advertisement on 10.10.2016 [Annexure R-III] in view of the facts that the Authority did not have an establishment branch to resort to recruitment etc. in the instant case. 4(ii). Reply-Affidavit further indicated that the HRTC Recruitment & Promotion Regulations dated 6.10.2016 [Annexure R-II] for the post of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] were decided to be followed for filing these posts i.e. 100% by direct ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 6 - recruitment on contract basis. 4(iii). Para 6 (II) of Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioners did not apply for the posts of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] which were advertised on 10.10.2016 [Annexure R-III]. 4(iv). Para 6(X) of the Reply-Affidavit further indicated that so far as the proposal for filling-up 15% posts in cadre of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] by way of limited direct recruitment from amongst Technicians who were having degree/ diploma in Automobile/Mechanical Engineering or equivalent is concerned, it was averred that the Administrative Sub-Committee of the Authority had approved the same and now matter has been sent to State Government and further necessary action will be taken in case, the aforesaid proposal is accepted by the State Government. 4(v). Para 6 (XXI) of Reply-Affidavit states that merely because the petitioners possessed the higher qualification of Diploma in Automobile/ Mechanical Engineering, therefore, they cannot claim an automatic right of appointment/promotion unless ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 7 - a right of consideration for appointment/promotion was permitted/recognized in terms of existing Rules. In this background, the Respondent-Corporation has prayed for dismissal of the instant writ petition. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 5. In rebuttal, petitioner has filed a rejoinder, denying the averments in Reply-Affidavit. It is stated that one time relaxation in Rules should have been granted to the petitioners. It is averred that 15% posts which were proposed to be filled-up by LDR has been kept pending just to deprive the petitioners of their fundamental right of consideration for appointment/ promotion to the higher post. In this background, the averments and claim in the writ petition was reiterated. INSTRUCTIONS IN PURSUANCE TO ORDERS DATED 26.04.2024: 6. Upon listing of this matter on 26.04.2024, the respondent-Corporation has placed on record Instructions dated 03.05.2024, stating that, based on the qualification of Diploma, 40% quota was proposed for Diploma Holders in promotional cadre of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-I] and this proposal ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 8 - was placed before the Service Committee meeting on 02.12.2021 which stands approved but the matter- proposal thereafter has been sent to the State Government for approval, which is still awaited. 7. Heard, Mr. 7. Heard, Mr. Onkar Jairath, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ramakant Sharma & Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Learned Additional Advocates General, for respondent No.1-State as well as Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3- HRTC. ANALYSIS: 8. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that challenge laid by petitioners to the Advertisement dated 10.10.2016 [Annexure A-9] for filling-up of 44 posts of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II], is misconceived and is untenable, for the following reasons:- 8(i). The State Legislature enacted the Himachal Pradesh City and Bus Stands Management and Development Authority, Act 1999 [referred to as Authority herein]. By virtue of aforesaid enactment ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 9 - Respondents-Authority, came into existence on 01.04.2000. The aforesaid Authority in its meeting held on 07.11.2015, decided to create 44 posts of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II], in the Authority, which were to be filled-up on contract basis on the basis of the Recruitment & Promotion Regulations dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure R-II] issued by Respondent No.2-Corporation for the post of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] as per Rule 10 i.e 100% by direct recruitment on contract basis. Thus, once the Recruitment & Promotion Regulations dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure R-II] provide that the posts are to be filled-up by direct recruitment, on contract basis; then, the petitioners being in service incumbents do not have any right to claim filling of, any post by promotion and therefore, the claim of the petitioners is devoid of any merit. 8(ii). Perusal of the Recruitment & Promotion Regulations dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure R-II] for the post of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] indicates that all these 44 posts are to be filled-up by direct recruitment on contract basis. These Rules ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 10 - nowhere provide for filling-up of any of these posts by way of promotion. Petitioners have not laid any challenge to these Regulations and therefore, in absence of any challenge to the Regulations dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure R-II], the State Authorities have neither any legal nor any fundamental right of petitioners has been violated in any manner. 8(iii). Perusal of the Recruitment & Promotion Regulations dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure R-II] do not include the category of the petitioners i.e. Technician Grade-II as feeder category in the Recruitment & Promotion Regulations. Even no promotion quota exists for petitioner. Unless and until the petitioners were included as a feeder category by way of promotion in the Rules, no right accrues for claiming promotion against any of these posts in the instant case. 8(iv). No employee has a vested right of promotion. An employee has a limited right of consideration and that too in accordance with Recruitment & Promotion Rules/ Regulations in force. In the instant case, the Rules/Regulations dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure R-II] do not provide for any promotional ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 11 - quota or any feeder category from which the posts are to be filled-up. Thus, in absence of any promotional quota or any feeder category to the petitioners, who were initially appointed as Junior Technicians and were promoted as Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] do not have any fundamental right of consideration, in the cadre of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] as in the Regulations dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure R-II]. 8(v). It is trite law that right of consideration for promotion, if any, accrues to an employee by virtue of applicable Rules/Regulations in force. In the instant case, once existing Recruitment & Promotion Rules/Regulations dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure R-II], do not provide for filling any of the 44 posts of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] by way of promotion and the petitioners are not included in the feeder-category then, unless and until the promotion quota is prescribed by including the petitioners in the feeder grade, no right accrues to the petitioners in the instant case. 8(vi). Even, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 12 - Commissioner of Municipal Administration and another versus M.C. Sheela Evanjalin and others, (2020) 19 SCC 317 has mandated that possessing the educational qualifications will not confer automatic right of appointment but an employee has a limited right of consideration, in case a person is in feeder cadre/grade and such feeder category incumbent is otherwise eligible and fulfils all other conditions prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. The operative Paras of the judgment read as under:- “13. We find that the orders of the High Court are patently illegal and unwarranted. The respondent was initially appointed as Road Gang Mazdoor. She came to be appointed as Revenue Assistant in pursuance of the orders passed by the Madras High Court for the reason that she is qualified for such post. The qualification for the post is not the criteria for appointment to the public post as any appointment to a public post cannot be made merely on the basis of possessing required educational qualifications. Any appointment to a public post can be made in the manner provided by the applicable recruitment rules in terms of law enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or the Rules made in terms of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of law and/or the rules, the executive instructions may also prescribe the eligibility conditions including the educational qualifications, experience, age limit for appointment to the post. In the present case, the respondent sought appointment as Revenue Assistant only on the basis of the fact that she possesses Diploma in Civil Engineering. The possession of Diploma in Civil Engineering is not entitlement to a public post unless such ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 13 - post is advertised and opportunity is given to all the eligible candidates to apply for the post in terms of applicable rules. 14. The fact remains that the Commissioner, Kuzhithurai Municipality has appointed the respondent as Revenue Assistant way back in 2006. However, the greed of the respondent for further promotion or appointment to the higher post did not end. She wanted to be appointed as Town Planning Officer again on the strength of her qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering. As per the facts on record, the post of Town Planning Inspector is governed by the Tamil Nadu Municipal Town Planning Service Rules, 1970 and that such post can be filled up either by way of promotion or by direct recruitment. The respondent is not in the feeder cadre for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector. In the absence of her being in feeder cadre, the High Court committed illegality in directing the consideration for appointment of the respondent to the post of Town Planning Inspector. It may be noticed that Town Planning Officer Grade II is a promotional post from amongst Town Planning Inspectors, who has worked in regular capacity for a period of ten years as per the Rules. 15. The stand of the respondent that the post of Town Planning Inspector is governed by the General Rules, is not made out as such Rules provide for promotion for the post of Revenue Assistant to the post of Revenue Inspector but not to the post of Town Planning Inspector. The Town Planning Assistant Draughtsman is the feeder cadre for promotion of Town Planning Inspector and that the Revenue Assistant is not the feeder cadre nor the respondent can claim any right to appointment only on the basis of her educational qualifications. 16. We find the manner in which the High Court has issued directions time and again shows utter disregard to the basic principles of law and then calling upon the officers to face contempt if the directions are not complied with. Such directions are wholly without any legal basis and, thus, cannot be sustained.” ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 14 - 9. Contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioners that Respondent-Corporation has ignored the proposal whereby the category of Junior Technician alike the petitioners, who possessed Degree/Diploma in Automobile/ Mechanical Engineering or equivalent were to be given 15% posts by LDR in terms of the communication dated 02.12.2015 [Annexure A-7] but while issuing/adopting the Rules on 06.10.2016 [Annexure R-II], all 44 posts of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] have been directed to be filled-up 100% by direct recruitment on contract basis. The above plea of Learned Counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any merit, for the reason, that the proposal confers no right on the petitioners. It is the issuance-adoption of the Rules/Regulations dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure R-II], which confers the eligibility and entitlement for consideration for a post in terms of notified Rules/Regulations. Thus, once, the existing Rules/Regulations dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure R-II] provided for filling-up 44 posts by direct recruitment on contract basis then, the Advertisement dated 10.10.2016 [Annexure R-III] does not suffer from any ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 15 - illegality and moreover, when the aforesaid Advertisement is in accordance with the mandate in the existing Rules. Besides, even the petitioners have chosen not to participate in the selection for post(s) of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] advertised on 10.10.2016 [Annexure R-III]. Non-participation negativates the claim of petitioners. Merely, because the petitioners possess the higher qualification of Diploma in Automobile/Mechanical Engineering will not confer an ipso facto right on post. No person, including the petitioners, have any automatic right or claim for a post, which is to be regulated strictly in accordance with the applicable/existing Rules in force on the date of commencement of selection process. Thus, in view of the above discussion, once the petitioners have neither in feeder grade nor any promotional quota has been prescribed in the extant Rules for filling 44 posts of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] then, the petitioners have neither any right nor any locus standi and therefore, the recruitment process initiated for filling these 44 posts by direct recruitment by issuing advertisement ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 16 - on 10.10.2016 [Annexure R-III] does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 10. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed, in the following terms:- (i). The Advertisement dated 10.10.2016 [Annexure A-9/Annexure R-III] for filling-up the post of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] on contract basis is upheld; (ii). Petitioners cannot claim promotion against 15% posts of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II], dehors the R&P Regulations dated 06.10.2016 [Annexure R- II], which does not provide for any promotional quota and therefore, the claim is turned down; (iii). Parties to bear their respective costs. 11. Before parting with this judgment, this Court observes that as a sequel to the directions passed by this Court on 26.04.2024, the Respondent- Corporation has furnished the Instructions dated 03.05.2024 [on record], whereby, based on higher ( 2025:HHC:16741 ) - 17 - qualification of Diploma/Degree, a proposal was mooted for giving representation to the Junior Technicians, alike the petitioners in the promotional cadre of Junior Technical Officers [Foreman Grade-II] is stated to be pending with the State Government for approval. Accordingly, this Court hopes and trusts that the State Authorities shall take a decision on such proposal in accordance with law [if not already taken] expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge May 28, 2025 [Shivender/tm]