2026:HHC:22141 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9099 of 2026 Decided on: 15.06.2026 Satpal Singh Chauhan … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. No notice issued to respondents No.3 to 30. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 28.02.2026 (Annexure P-5), in terms whereof, 28 persons whose names are reflected in the said promotion order, stand promoted to the post of Principal. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a Lecturer and is eligible for promotion against the post of Principal from the Cadre of Lecturers. His further contention is that in terms of the information gathered by him under the Right to Information Act, copy whereof is appended with this petition as Annexure P-6, the total sanctioned strength of Principals, School Cadre as on 31.12.2025 is 2018. Out of this, promotion to the said post is to be made 50% from amongst the feeder category of Lecturers and 50% from amongst the feeder category of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:22141 Headmasters. It is further the contention of the petitioner, as urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner, that in terms of the information provided under the Right to Information Act, 1009 posts are to be filled in from amongst the Cadre of Lecturers and 1009 posts are to be filled from amongst the Cadre of Headmasters. Out of the said posts, 151 posts are to be filled from Schedule Caste Category from each of the Feeder Categories. His grievance is that in terms of the impugned order, 28 candidates who stand promoted as Lecturers, they all belong to the Schedule Caste Category and as this promotion takes the total number of Schedule Caste candidates manning the post of Principal School Cadre from the feeder category of Lecturers in excess of the requisite number of 151 posts, therefore, the said promotion is bad in law. 3. On a query put to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to which of the promoted candidates are junior to the petitioner, the Court was informed that none of the promoted candidates are junior to the petitioner. 4. In fact, Annexure P-5, which is the impugned Notification, demonstrates that the candidates who have been promoted in terms of the said order, were having seniority position in the seniority list of Lecturers ranging from 3780 to 3926. On the other hand, the seniority number of the petitioner in the seniority list of Lecturers is 4892, which is evident from the seniority list of Lecturers appended with the petition as Annexure P-9 (Colly) and 3 2026:HHC:22141 communication dated 03.12.2025, which is at Page-265 of the Paper Book. 5. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the candidates who have been promoted as Principals from the feeder category of Lecturers are all senior to the petitioner and as the last selected candidate, namely, Uttam Singh is senior to the petitioner by at least 800 ranks, he has no locus to file and maintain this petition. 6. In fact, if it is the case of the petitioner that he is eligible for promotion against the post of Lecturer on the strength of his seniority, then obviously each Lecturer in the seniority list above the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the said post. Herein, it is not as if either of the promoted candidates were junior to the petitioner and yet, he or she stands promoted. As observed hereinabove also, the last selected candidate Shri Uttam Singh is having seniority number 3926 in the seniority list of Lecturers, whereas the seniority number of the petitioner is 4892. The gap between the last selected candidate and the petitioner is of more than 900 candidates. That being the case, the petitioner has no locus to file and maintain this petition. The petitioner cannot question as to why all the candidates from one Category only have been promoted. The version of the petitioner that all the promoted candidates belong to the Scheduled Caste Category cannot be believed, for the simple reason that their promotion does not adversely affect the petitioner, as he admittedly 4 2026:HHC:22141 is 900 seniority points below the last promoted candidate, in terms of Annexure P-5. 7. It is settled law that service petitions are not public interest litigations and only the person who is directly affected, can approach the Court in a service matter. Herein, the promotion of the candidates, whose names are mentioned in Annexure P-5, do not adversely affect the petitioner, as all of them are considerably senior to him. As it could not be demonstrated before the Court that in the event of the non-promotion of either of the private respondents, it was only the petitioner who would have been promoted, ignoring all the 900 candidates in between the last selected candidate and the petitioner, obviously as observed hereinabove, this petition is totally misconceived and is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and the same is dismissed with cost of 25,000/-, out of which, Rs.15,000/- shall be deposited with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority and Rs.10,000/- be deposited with Himachal Pradesh Bar Association Welfare Fund. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation qua the validity of the transfer order under challenge. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 15, 2026 (Rishi)