2026:HHC:25588 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2616 of 2026 Reserved on: 16.06.2026 Decided on: 30.06.2026 Uploaded on: 30.06.2026 Anjum Abbas … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rrajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to immediately convene a DPC for the post of Controller, HPF & AS against two vacant posts available in the department on account of the persons being on long term secondment/deputation with further directions to consider the petitioner for the post of Controller, HPF & AS and if found fit and suitable to promote her in any case, before 31.3.2026 which is the date of superannuation of the petitioner in the interest of law and justice. (ii) That further an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to promote the petitioner for the post of Controller, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:25588 HPF & AS and the petitioner may be made eligible and entitled to all the consequential benefits including pay scale etc.etc.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the respondent- Department, there are posts of Controller. The post of Controller in terms of Notification dated 19.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) is filled in 100% by promotion from amongst Joint Controllers having 3 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service. As per the petitioner, she became eligible for promotion against the post of Controller in the year 2025, having completed the requisite number of years of service as a Joint Controller. It is further her case that a Departmental Promotion Committee was conducted on 30.03.2025, for promotion against the posts of Controller and 7 Joint Controllers were considered for promotion including the petitioner. It is further her case that respondents promoted 5 persons by way of promotion to the posts of Controller including 2 against the posts which were available on account of the incumbents serving against said 2 posts being on long deputation. According to the petitioner, one of the incumbents is on deputation with BBMB since the year 2006 and the other is on deputation with Central University of Himachal Pradesh since 2022. To substantiate this fact, the petitioner has appended with the petition the Minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee as Annexure P-2. It is further her case that out of the existing Cadre of the post of Controllers, one incumbent superannuated in the month of November, 2025 and another 3 2026:HHC:25588 incumbent retired on 31.01.2026. Thereafter, a proposal for convening the Departmental Promotion Committee against these 2 vacancies was initiated in the departmental file in the first week of February, 2026. Her grievance is that despite the fact that she was eligible for promotion against the post of Controller against the 2 vacancies that had become available, the Department took a u-turn and took a stand that it did not intend to fill-up the vacant posts so created on the ground that the posts which were being occupied by the incumbents who were on deputation, could not be construed as vacant posts by the Department. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition. 3. When this case was listed on 06.03.2026, the following order was passed:- “CWP No.2616 of 2026 Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. As prayed for, reply be filed by the next date of hearing. List on 17.03.2026. CMP No.3633 of 2026 Notice in above terms. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/ petitioner has argued that the petitioner is serving as a Joint Controller. She is eligible for promotion to the post of Controller. There are in all thirteen posts of Controller in the respondent-Department and there are two vacancies lying vacant. Learned Senior Counsel submits that these two vacancies are there on account of long deputation of the holders of the said posts. He further submits that one person is on deputation since the 4 2026:HHC:25588 year 2006 and the other is on deputation since the year 2022. Learned Senior Counsel referred to Para-16.23 of the Handbook on Personal Matters and submitted that in a situation where the incumbent has gone on deputation on a long term basis, the post in issue has to be treated as a vacancy and it has to be filled according to the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. He contended that previously this was done by the Authorities with regard to the said posts, holders of which were on long term deputation, but now a U-Turn has been taken by the Department and despite the fact that a Departmental Promotion Committee was proposed to be convened in the month of February, 2026, nothing is being done, depriving the petitioner from her chance of promotion who otherwise is to superannuate on 31.03.2026. Learned Senior Counsel in this regard also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court on the issue, i.e. CWP No.8098 of 2023, titled Vibhore Kumar Sharma Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 14.05.2024 and submitted that this judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also not interfered with the same. Learned Deputy Advocate General to have instructions, as to why the petitioner is not being considered for promotion against the vacancy which is there on account of the long term deputation despite the fact that as per the learned Senior Counsel, she falls in the Zone of Consideration as she is at Serial No.2 in the Seniority of Joint Controllers. As prayed for, list on 17.03.2026.” Thereafter, on 17.03.2026, the following order was passed:- 5 2026:HHC:25588 “Learned Additional Advocate General has handed over instructions dated 16.03.2026. Having perused the same, this Court is not satisfied with them. In light of the fact that the petitioner has to superannuate on 31.03.2026, the act of the Department of not considering her case in terms of the previous precedents is both arbitrary and discriminatory. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to take a positive view in the matter and report back to the Court on 19.03.2026.” As the petitioner was to superannuate on 31.03.2026, on 25.03.2026, the following order was passed:- “Reply stands filed. Rejoinder thereto be filed, within a period of three weeks. List on 17.04.2026. It is observed that because the petitioner has already aporoached the Court before her retirement, the factum of the petitioner superannuating during the pendency of the petition, shall not come in the way of the relief being prayed for by her, in case, she is held entitled for it by the Court.” 4. During the course of hearing of the petition, this Court had requisitioned the minutes of the meeting of the earlier Departmental Promotion Committees convened for promoting Joint Controllers against the post of Controller, which were made available for the perusal of the Court and perusal thereof demonstrated that on more than one occasion, incumbents senior to the petitioner stood promoted against the post of Controller against the seats of the incumbents who were on long deputation. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that 6 2026:HHC:25588 the present case is a case of sheer discrimination. He submitted that the Department was consistently conferring promotion to incumbents, i.e. Joint Controllers against the posts held by incumbents who were on long deputation and departure from the said practice has been made by the Department for the first time in the case of the petitioner and that too when she was on the verge of superannuation. He submitted that the Department should have followed the same practice at least upto the petitioner as she was legitimately expecting her promotion against the said post in light of similar treatment given to her seniors. Learned Senior Counsel, thus, submitted that the act of the respondent-Department of denying promotion to the petitioner against the post of Controller on the ground that no promotions can be made to the posts held by persons on long deputation is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it was a matter of record that 2 Controllers are there on long deputation since the years 2006 and 2022, however, Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh in terms of Annexure R-2/2 issued a clarification on 11.03.2026, reiterating its instructions dated 28.06.2001, categorically stating that posts falling vacant on account of deputation or secondment shall not be filled up by any mode of recruitment. He submitted that in light of this fact, the Department decided not to hold any Departmental Promotion Committees and therefore, the act of the Department of 7 2026:HHC:25588 not holding the Departmental Promotion Committee cannot be assailed. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the lien of the incumbents who were there on deputation was still with the Parent Department and therefore, the said post could not be treated as vacant. He thus submitted that as there was no illegality in the stand of the Department, the petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the pleadings as also documents appended therewith and record also, this Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the act of the Department of denying promotion to the petitioner against the post of Controller is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. It is not in dispute that in the previous Departmental Promotion Committees, the posts held by incumbents who were on long deputation were treated as vacancies and promotions were conferred against said posts. 9. This Court is of the considered view that as this practice was being followed by the Department, the petitioner could not have been discriminated against when her turn came, more so in light of the fact that when the vacancy in issue became available the petitioner was almost on the verge of superannuation. 10. This Court does not have any quarrel with the legal 8 2026:HHC:25588 issue that the posts being held by incumbents who are on deputation cannot be treated as vacant posts, but then the Department itself in the present case was treating the posts as vacant and that too, since the year 2006. 11. Therefore, in these peculiar circumstances, interest of justice would have been served, had the Department held the Departmental Promotion Committee and considered the petitioner for promotion against two vacancies which were available, but with the condition that henceforth, the vacancies shall not be treated as vacant. This was required more so, in light of the fact that in the previous Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner indeed was in the zone of consideration, which fact has not been denied by the Department. 12. Therefore, in light of the above observations, this petition is allowed to the extent that the act of the Department of not holding Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the petitioner for promotion against the post of Controller, when 2 vacancies became available in the month of November, 2025 and 31.01.2026,more so in light of the fact that proposal for convening Departmental Promotion Committee was initiated, is held to be bad. Further, as a matter personal to the petitioner, the respondent- Department is directed to hold Departmental Promotion Committee as on 31.01.2026 and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion against the post of Controller and in case she is found 9 2026:HHC:25588 eligible for promotion and is recommended by Departmental Promotion Committee, then consequences shall ensue. It is further ordered that these directions have been passed by this Court in the peculiar facts of this case and the same shall not be treated as precedent. This Court otherwise holds that the posts held by the incumbents who are on deputation, cannot be treated as vacancies for the purposes of promotion and at the best only officiating promotions can be effected against the said posts. 13. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 30, 2026 (Rishi)