( 2026:HHC:20423 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.4975 of 2019 Decided on: 27th May, 2026 Mohinder Kumar Sharma ....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: Ms.Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate vice Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned letter dated 31.1.2014 (A-6) and 04.03.2014 (A-7) may very kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice. (ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to promote and consider the applicant on notional promotion to the post of Principal (Polytechnic) against the vacancy of the year 2012 and refix the pay of the applicant as consequent thereof and pay the arrears of pay, refix the pay and allowances of the promoted post and to refix the pension and other retiral benefits as per the per revised pay of the post of Principal with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:20423 ) 2 (iii) That the respondents may further be directed to pay the arrears and other retiral benefits with interest @18% per annum from the year 2012 till the actual date of payment.” 2. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Administrator in Civil Engineering with the respondents-State in the month of December, 1974 and later on promoted as Lecturer in Civil Engineering in January, 1988. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Lecturer (Civil Engineering) in the year 2001 and later on promoted as Head of the Department of Civil Engineering in the year 2003. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was eligible to be promoted to the post of Principal, as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 02.12.1993, however, his case came to be rejected by respondent No.1 on 31.01.2014 on the ground that the post of Principal had become available in the month of August, 2013, when as per Notification dated 06.02.2012 (Annexure A-1) five Government Polytechnic Institutions were made functional, whereas the petitioner had retired on 31.01.2013. The petitioner has staked his claim on the basis of instructions dated 25.06.2013, wherein it has been mentioned that there is no specific bar in the related instructions for consideration ( 2026:HHC:20423 ) 3 of retired employees, while preparing year wise panel(s), who were in the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s). Even if the petitioner had retired, his case ought to have been considered, once the State Government had been pleased to create five posts of Principals (Polytechnics) in the State of Himachal Pradesh at Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur, District Kullu, District Bilaspur, Lahaul and Spiti and Kinnaur at Kalpa. The action on the part of the respondents is highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The respondent-Department took more than two years to convene DPC in the year 2014 for the vacancies starting from the year 2012 upto the year 2013 for considering the case for promotion to the post of Principal against the year 2012 vacancies and the candidature of the petitioner was not considered. As per instructions dated 25.06.2013 and office memorandum dated 14.11.2014, the respondent-Department had arbitrarily ignored the petitioner for promotion and not adhered to the above said instructions. 4. The respondents filed reply to the petition and submitted that the All India Council for Technical Education (for short ‘AICTE’) is a regulatory body, which grants approval for opening of new institutions in the fields of Engineering, ( 2026:HHC:20423 ) 4 Pharmacy and Management and extension of approvals (EOA) for the existing institutions. The AICTE on 02.05.2012 communicated the deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Visit Committees in reference to the proposed five new Polytechnics in five un-served districts under the scheme “Sub-Mission on Polytechnics”. The AICTE in the month of March, 2013 again rejected the proposal to approve start of classes in one of the mentor institutions from academic session 2013-14 for starting the Polytechnics in their mentors institutes from the session 2013-14 without intimating the reasons. However, later on due to intervention of respondent No.1, approval was granted for all five new Government Polytechnics on 30.04.2013 (Annexure R-6). Thereafter, Government had granted approval on 12.06.2013 (Annexure R-8) and thus the creation and allowing filling up of five posts of Principal issued vide Notification dated 06.02.2012 is of no consequence, as one of the main ingredients, which makes the Notification operative in respect of filling up of posts either by promotion or by direct recruitment is the approval of the AICTE for running the aforesaid Polytechnics and the same was granted on 30.04.2013. Since the petitioner had retired on 31.01.2013 and the vacancy had arisen after his ( 2026:HHC:20423 ) 5 retirement, there is no question his falling in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Principal. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the facts in the reply. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 7. It is not in dispute that after issuance of Notification dated 06.02.2012 (Annexure A-1), the State Government had got the approval to start the institutions on 30.04.2013 (Annexure R-6). Once the approval was received on 30.04.2013, the respondent-Department could not have started the aforementioned institutions simply by issuing Notification dated 06.02.2012. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had retired on 31.01.2013 and approval was granted by the AICTE on 30.04.2013, which is the apex body to grant recognition to start the courses. The plea raised by the petitioner that the posts were lying vacant for the year 2012 is not supported by any material and once there was no post of Principal lying vacant before the retirement of the petitioner on 31.01.2013, his case could not have been considered for promotion to the post of Principal. ( 2026:HHC:20423 ) 6 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the respondents-State had issued instructions dated 25.06.2013, wherein it was specifically mentioned that there is no specific bar in the related instructions for consideration of retired employees, while preparing year wise panel(s), who were in the zone of consideration in the relevant year(s) is concerned, that could have been considered only in case the vacancies were there before the retirement of the petitioner. Once no tangible material has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that the vacancy was available before his retirement, the stand taken by the respondents that the approval was granted only on 30.04.2013 and there was no vacancy prior to that, the instructions pressed into service is of no help to the petitioner. These instructions do not say that even if the person has retired and the vacancy was not in existence at the relevant time, the candidature of such person must also be considered for a future vacancy and even otherwise that is not the law of the land. So far as the office memorandum dated 14.11.2014 is concerned, that is also not of any help to the petitioner for the simple reason that the post of Principal was not available before his retirement on 30.01.2013 and ( 2026:HHC:20423 ) 7 thus no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from the said instructions issued by the Government of India. 9. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 27th May, 2026 Judge (naveen)