IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2697 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Dr. Shalini Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan and Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP No.12060 of 2025 By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of applicant/petitioner for recalling the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.2697 of 2025, thereby recording the statement of learned counsel representing the petitioner that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file representation to the competent authority. 2. It is averred in the petition that counsel representing the petitioner was never instructed to withdraw the writ petition, rather, he was instructed to get the matter decided on merits. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Though learned counsel representing the petitioner, taking note of the fact that this Court was not inclined to grant relief, as prayed for, sought leave of this Court to file representation, but to avoid further complication, especially for learned counsel representing the petitioner, this Court without going into the merits of the application, deems it fit to allow the same. 4. In view of the above, application is allowed and order dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.2697 of 2025 is recalled, as a result thereof, afore writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original number. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.2697 of 2025 5. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That the advertisement notice dated 22-1-2025 (Annexure- P/10) and Advertisement dated 23- 1-2025 (Annexure-P/11) issued by the respondent No. 2 on the requisition of the respondent No. 1, being illegal, arbitrary, contrary, unreasonable, unjustified, invalid, unconstitutional, unwarranted, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and unsustainable in the eyes of law, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That, in case, the respondents succeed in making the appointment against the post of Professor in the Department of Anaesthesia in Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College, Mandi at Ner Chowk during the pendency of the present petition, such appointment, if any, may kindly also be quashed and set aside. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to promote or designate the petitioner as Professor in the Department of Anesthesia in Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College, Mandi at Ner 3 Chowk providing one time relaxation in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Professor as the petitioner is the senior most faculty of the Department of Anesthesia of this Medical College having requisite qualification experience.” 6. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that respondents, taking note of the fact that since petitioner has been teaching in Government Medical College and Hospital, Mandi at Ner Chowk, for more than 12 years, she ought to have been extended benefit of relaxation in experience, while considering her case for promotion to the post of Professor in the Department of Anesthesia. 7. Respondents by way of reply have refuted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Professor clearly provide that candidate desirous of getting promotion to the post of Professor should have four years of teaching experience in the capacity of Associate Professor. True it is, that petitioner otherwise had been teaching in the College concerned for more than 12 years, but not in the capacity of Associate Professor. 8. Pleadings adduced on record by respective parties suggests that petitioner has been working in aforesaid capacity as Assistant Professor, whereas for the post of Professor, candidate concerned is required to possess four years of experience in the capacity of Associate Professor. Since Recruitment & Promotion Rules 4 qua the post in question nowhere provides for relaxation, there is no occasion, if any, for this Court to accept the request made by the petitioner to issue direction to respondents to grant relaxation, while considering her case for promotion to the post of Professor. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 28, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)