( 2026:HHC:16766 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.943 of 2019 Decided on: 12th May, 2026 Yogesh Mahajan ....Petitioner versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vishwa Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for quashing the Notification dated 23.04.2012, whereby the promotion granted to him to the post of Agriculture Development Officer (for short ‘ADO’) vide Notification dated 04.07.2011, was withdrawn with immediate effect. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide office order dated 14.07.1999 as Agriculture Extension Officer (for short the ‘AEO’) and later on confirmed on 20.12.2004. The post of ADO is to be filled-up 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:16766 ) 2 promotion as per Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Services (Class-I Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred as R&P Rules). Since the petitioner was possessing the requisite qualification as per R&P Rules, the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘DPC’) was convened and on the recommendations made by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, he was promoted to the post of ADO Class-I (Gazetted) in the pay- scale of Rs.10300-34800+5000 grade pay on regular basis with immediate effect, as per Notification dated 04.07.2011 (Annexure P-4). However, the persons, who were not considered for promotion had approached this Court by way of CWP No.5937 of 2010, titled, Rustam Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and this Court vide order dated 22.09.2010, had ordered that in case the order regarding one time relaxation as per Annexure P-4 in the said petiton has not been actually implemented in the case of private respondents, further proceedings in that regard will be deferred for the time being. After passing the order by this Court on 22.09.2010, the respondents had issued Notification dated 23.04.2012 (Annexure P-5), whereby the order of promotion in respect of petitioner and two other ( 2026:HHC:16766 ) 3 persons namely, S/Sh. Rakesh Dhanjal and Amarjeet Kumar were withdrawn. The petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.5 in the aforesaid petition instituted by the affected persons and as per averments made in the writ petition, once the respondents had granted relaxation to the AEO, who had passed the B.Sc. course of three years, the withdrawal order passed by the respondents-State is bad in law, more especially, when the petitioners in the ibid petition had also joined and the said information was withheld from the Court. 3. The respondents filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner possesses the Bachelor degree of Science (Agriculture) in three year degree programme during July, 1986 and Master of Science (Plant Breeding) during September, 1990 from the H.P. Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Palampur and thereafter appointed as Village Extension Officer (now Agriculture Extension Officer) in the Department of Agriculture on 14.07.1999. The next promotional post from the Agriculture Extension Officer is ADO and the petitioner being eligible for promotion to the post of ADO against 45% quota meant for the AEO, in view of the existing R&P Rules to the post of ADO notified on 03.06.1995. It has further been averred that the post of ADO is a ‘selection post’ and has to ( 2026:HHC:16766 ) 4 be filled-up on merit-cum-seniority basis and for departmental candidates, it should be considered by the DPC to be presided over by the Chairman, H.P. Public Service Commission or members thereto nominated by him. The respondents with a view to accommodate the departmental candidates having B.Sc. three years degree in agriculture, relaxed the R&P Rules vide letter dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure-R/I) and the petitioner was promoted to the post of ADO as per merit-cum-seniority basis and in relaxation of R&P Rules with other eligible candidates vide Notification dated 04.07.2011 and in compliance with the said Notification, the petitioner joined on the post of ADO on 05.07.2011. It has further been mentioned that the relaxation in the R&P Rules, vide letter dated 19.11.2008, was challenged by way of ibid writ petition and this Court had passed the order on 22.09.2010 to defer the proceedings for the time being, in case the said relaxation has actually not been implemented. As per final seniority list of ADOs as on 01.06.2010, the petitioner was at Serial No.258 and the person namely, Rustam Singh was at Serial No.236. It has been mentioned that the claim of Rustam Singh was not considered inadvertently, but later on, he was promoted to ( 2026:HHC:16766 ) 5 the post of ADO by holding a review DPC only on 06.08.2011, who joined on the post on 08.08.2011 and now he stands retired from service on 30.05.2017. The respondents have not denied promotion of the petitioner vide Notification dated 04.07.2011, which was in accordance with the R&P Rules, after relaxation of the same, when his claim was considered along-with other eligible candidates, but the Notification dated 04.07.2011 was only withdrawn in view of interim order dated 22.09.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No.5937 of 2010. It is relevant to mention here that the aforementioned CWP No.5937 of 2010, after establishment of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal was transferred to the Tribunal, where it was registered as T.A. No.284 of 2015. However, after the abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to this Court and came to be registered as CWPOA No.410 of 2019. This petition has now been dismissed on 29.10.2025 for non- prosecution and the petitioner has placed on record the said order by way of rejoinder as Annexure PR-2. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted, to the post of ADO vide Notification dated ( 2026:HHC:16766 ) 6 04.07.2011 on the recommendations of the H.P. Public Service Commission and in sequel to the said Notification, he had joined on the post of ADO on 05.07.2011. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been promoted after following the due procedure of law, when the respondents- State had relaxed the R&P Rules on 19.11.2008 and his promotion thereafter has been made after about 2½ years. It is also not in dispute that the respondents-State had withdrawn the said Notification, whereby the petitioner was promoted to the post of ADO only on account of the orders passed in the writ petition, instituted by the aggrieved persons against the relaxation granted in the R&P Rules by the respondents-State, which petition was registered as CWP No.5937 of 2010, titled, Rustam Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. It is also not in dispute that the said writ petition has now been dismissed for non- prosecution on 29.10.2025. 6. It is the case of the respondents themselves that the petitioner has been promoted as per R&P Rules, after relaxation and the impugned Notification was issued, after the direction given by this Court in the aforementioned petition, which has now been dismissed for non-prosecution. ( 2026:HHC:16766 ) 7 The impugned Notification dated 23.04.2012 issued by the respondents-State withdrawing the promotion order is not sustainable, especially, when the interim order passed by this Court stands vacated, after the dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution on 29.10.2025. The respondents-State has rather supported the claim of the petitioner as his promotion was made after following the due procedure of law and on the recommendations of the H.P. Public Service Commission, but the only impediment was the direction given by this Court in the aforementioned petition on 22.09.2010, which compelled them to withdraw the earlier Notification dated 04.07.2011. Once the writ petition has been dismissed, the interim order automatically stands vacated and thus the impugned Notification dated 23.04.2012 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned Notification dated 23.04.2012 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to all the benefits of the post of Agriculture Development Officer as per Notification dated 04.07.2011. The respondents are directed to release all the consequential benefits to the petitioner within three months. ( 2026:HHC:16766 ) 8 In case the arrears are not released to the petitioner within three months from today, the respondents shall pay interest @6% per annum from today, till the actual payment to him. However, there shall be no orders to cost. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 12th May, 2026 Judge (naveen)