( 2026:HHC:25823 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.676 of 2019 Decided on: 30.06.2026 Ram Dass ...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. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “a) That the respondent may kindly be directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer from the date when his juniors have been promoted keeping in view the fact that petitioner is going to retire on 31-01-2011 i.e. within a short span of 4 months with all consequential benefits including the monetary benefit with interest @18% from the date when this benefit has accrued to the petitioner. b) That the respondent may also be directed to produce the entire service record of the petitioner as also that of all the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:25823 ) 2 persons, who were junior in service to the petitioner & have been ordered to be promoted ignoring the petitioner along with the reasons for doing the same.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineeron 09.07.1979 in the respondent-State and was posted at IPH Division, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P., where he joined his duties. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. As per seniority list of Junior Engineers circulated in the year 2007, the petitioner was at Serial No.207 and one Prakash Chand was at Serial No.209. It has been averred that though the petitioner was senior to Prakash Chand, however, he was not promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, whereas, the said Prakash Chand, who was junior to him was promoted as per Notification dated 01.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) and his name figures at Serial No.11. It has been averred that despite serving for about 32 years, the petitioner was not promoted though his entire service record was unblemished. It has also been averred that the action on the part of the respondent-State in promoting the persons junior to him is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 3. The respondent-State did not dispute the fact that the petitioner was senior to Prakash Chand as well as one Anant Ram, who was at Serial No.210 of the seniority list and has averred in the reply that a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for ( 2026:HHC:25823 ) 3 short the ‘DPC’) to fill-up the vacant posts of Assistant Engineer for the year 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 from amongst the Diploma Holder Junior Engineer, was convened on 24.08.2011 in the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on the basis of final seniority list of Junior Engineers showing the position as on 31.12.2008 circulated by Engineer-in-Chief, vide letter dated 29.12.2009. The name of petitioner, who was Diploma Holder Junior Engineer (Scheduled Caste) was at Serial No.207 of the seniority list, was considered by the DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer along-with his juniors. It has also been averred that as per the provisions for promotion to the selection posts, the Annual Confidential Reports (for short the ‘ACRs’) for the preceding 5 years are taken into account and the officer assessed as “Very Good” will supersede the officers as “Good” and the officer assessed as “Outstanding” will supersede the officers assessed as “Very Good” till the difference in service between the senior and junior in the feeder category does not exceed to more than two years. After scrutinizing the ACRs of all the eligible candidates for the preceding 5 years, the petitioner was assessed as “Good” by the DPC, as such, due to lower in merit, he was superseded by his juniors and could not find place in the promotion list. ( 2026:HHC:25823 ) 4 4. The H.P. Public Service Commission i.e. respondent No.13 filed its reply and reiterated the stand taken by the respondent-State. It has been averred that the DPC had considered the name of the petitioner at serial No.14 and assessed him ‘Good’ on the basis of the entries made in ACRs for the relevant five years period from 2005-06 to 2009-10 (due to non-availability of ACRs for the year 2009-10, his ACRs for the year 2004-05 was considered). Since the petitioner was lower in merit as compared to the merit of his juniors recommended, his name was not recommended for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinders to the replies and controverted the averments made in the reply. It was averred that the petitioner was not communicated about his ACRs. 6. This Court had passed an order on 30.10.2025directing the respondent-State to file an affidavit whether the ACRs for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 were communicated to the petitioner taking cue from the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the reply filed by the respondent-State, wherein he had stated that he was not communicated about the ACRs and the uncommunicated ACRs could not be made basis for superseding him. It is relevant to mention that in the reply filed by the H.P. Public Service Commission, it was stated that the petitioner was graded “Good” ( 2026:HHC:25823 ) 5 for the year 2005-2006, “Very Good” for the year 2006-2007, “Good” for the year 2007-2008, “Very Good” for the year 2008-2009 and “Good” for the year 2009-2010. 7. The respondent-Sate filed affidavit as per the directions given by the Court and admitted that the ACRs were not communicated to the petitioner and as per Department of Personnel office memorandum dated 7th March, 2011, new system of communicating the entries in the Annual Performance Assessment Report (in short ‘APAR) shall only be applicable prospectively w.e.f. the reporting period 2010-2011, which is to be initiated after 1st April, 2011. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not communicated about his ACRs and further the junior to him were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. However, though initially, the petitioner had not impleaded the persons junior to him, but subsequently, they were impleaded as such, but vide order dated 30.07.2012, on the oral request of learned counsel representing the petitioner, the names of respondents No.3, 7, 11 and 12 were deleted. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.02.2019, names of respondents No.4 to 6 and 8 to 10 were deleted. It is not ( 2026:HHC:25823 ) 6 known that under what circumstances, their names have been deleted. The petitioner could have claimed the relief only against the persons, who were junior to him and in the absence of his juniors though initially impleaded, but subsequently deleted, no orders can be passed in favour of the petitioner behind their back and without hearing them. In case the petition is allowed, it will adversely affect the juniors of the petitioner, who were promoted as Assistant Engineers and were deleted in the petition. Therefore, on this sole ground of non-impleadment of necessary parties, the petition is rejected. 10. So far as the plea taken by the respondent-State that the Department had taken a decision that new system of communicating the entries in the APAR shall only be applicable prospectively w.e.f. the reporting period 2010-2011, which is to be initiated after 1st April, 2011 is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the reason that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others, (2008) 8 SCC 725, has held that every entry in the ACR must be communicated to an employee within a reasonable period, whether poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. The view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt’s case (supra) has been reiterated in subsequent judgments also. ( 2026:HHC:25823 ) 7 11. Since in the present case, though the petitioner had impleaded the persons junior to him, but subsequently their names have been deleted, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in their absence. 12. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 30th June, 2026 Judge (naveen)