2026:HHC:28341 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2937 of 2017 Decided on: 10.07.2026 ____________________________________________________ Bablu Kumar ……….. petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Jagmohan Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Central Governmnt Standing Counsel, for respondents No. 1 to 4. : Mr. Pratap Singh Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The petitioner was appointed as a Safai Wala vide Annexure P-1 dated 20.12.2008 in the Cantonment Board, Subathu. In the petition, it has been averred that the petitioner holds a valid driving license and has been deputed to drive the official vehicle of the Cantonment Board, Subathu, whenever required from 18th May, 2013 till 1st October, 2016. In order to demonstrate the aforesaid fact, reference has been made to Annexure P-2 (Colly). 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. From a perusal of the documents appended along with Annexure P-2 (Colly), it is evident that the petitioner was engaged to drive the official vehicle whenever the regular driver, Rajender Kumar, was on leave. On account of the frequent engagement of the petitioner as a driver in the absence of the regular driver, the Sanitary Inspector, Cantonment Board, Subathu, had put in a request that rather than passing a fresh order for deputing the petitioner to perform the duties of the regular driver as and when the regular driver proceeded on leave, it would be better if a general order was passed to the effect that, as and when the regular driver, Rajender Kumar, was on leave, the petitioner would be deputed to perform the said work (Annexure P-3). 3. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner made a representation to the Cantonment Board for being appointed as a regular Driver in place of Rajender Kumar (Regular Driver), who was to retire on 30th September, 2017. The said representation is Annexure P-4. Thereafter, on the retirement of Rajender Kumar on 30th September, 2017, the Cantonment Board, vide Annexure P-5 dated 17th October, 2017, directed seven individuals named therein to submit their testimonials with respect to their academic qualifications and their respective driving license. Conspicuous by absence in the said order was the name of the present petitioner. 3 4. In sequel thereto, the present petitioner made a representation for being considered for promotion to the post of Driver which stood vacated on account of the retirement of Rajender Kumar. On account of non-consideration of the representation (Annexure P-6), the petitioner preferred CWP No. 2407 of 2017, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 20.10.2017. In terms of the judgment so passed (Annexure P-7), the respondents were directed to maintain status quo till a decision was taken on the aforesaid representation made by the petitioner. Thereafter, vide impugned Annexure P-8 dated 26.10.2017 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, respondent No. 5 was appointed as a Driver against the post which had fallen vacant. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition bearing COPC No. 296 of 2017 (Annexure P-9). The same was disposed of vide judgment dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 3.11.2017 (Annexure P-11) that his representation had been taken into account by the DPC/Selection Committee on 26.10.2017 and, since his name in the seniority list of Class-IV employees fell at the end, his name could not be recommended for appointment. 6. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that challenge has been laid to the promotion order, Annexure P-8 dated 26.10.2017, 4 whereby respondent No. 5 has been promoted to the vacant post of Driver. Other than the aforesaid, a challenge has also been laid to Annexure P-5, i.e. Office Order dated 17.10.2017, whereby seven individuals, other than the petitioner, had been directed to furnish their academic qualifications and license to drive LMV/LTV. Other than the aforesaid, it has been prayed that, upon quashing of the appointment of respondent No. 5, appointment be given to the present petitioner. 7. In the response filed by respondents No. 1 to 4, by way of preliminary objections, the locus standi of the petitioner has been assailed on account of the petitioner being lower in the feeder category of Class-IV employees and on the ground that the representation made by the petitioner had been duly considered by the DPC. Other than the aforesaid, a preliminary objection qua the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal has also been taken. 8. On merits, insofar as the request made by the Sanitary Inspector dated 16.6.2014 (Annexure P-3), filed along with the writ petition, is concerned, it has been categorically asserted that the proposal so mooted by the Sanitary Inspector had not matured and no office order had been issued by the respondents whereby the petitioner was to be permanently deputed to drive the official vehicle as and when the regular driver absented himself from work. In the reply, it has been 5 categorically asserted that the post of Driver is a promotional post to which promotions are to be made from the feeder category in accordance with the prescribed rules. Besides, it has been categorically asserted in the reply that the representation filed by the petitioner for being considered for promotion to the post of Driver was placed before the DPC and was duly considered. The petitioner could not be promoted, it is averred in the reply, as there existed two more individual’s senior to the petitioner in the feeder category. Insofar as Annexure P-5, Office Order dated 17th October, 2017, appended along with the writ petition is concerned, it has been categorically averred that the representation made by the petitioner dated 28.9.2017 (Annexure P-4), filed along with the writ petition and Annexure P-6, representation dated 18.10.2017, were on record. Both were duly considered in the DPC proceedings and, hence, there was no violation of the judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed in CWP No. 2407 of 2017 (Annexure P-7). The seniority list along with the proceedings of the Selection Committee held on 26.10.2017 has been placed on record along with the response. Other than the aforesaid, orders depicting the deputation of Sh. Sushil Kumar to drive the official vehicle on the retirement of the regular driver have also been placed on record along with the reply. 9. A separate reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5. In the reply filed, it has been averred that the 6 promotion has been made strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, and the contentions raised in the writ petition to the contrary have been vehemently denied. 10. In the rejoinder filed, the contents of the writ petition have been reiterated and the averments made to the contrary have been denied. Other than the aforesaid, it has been averred in the rejoinder that the petitioner was holding a valid driving license to drive LMV, LTV and HTV vehicles since 2004, whereas respondent No. 5 was holding a driving licensee to drive LMV and LTV vehicles only since 13.10.2017. 11. Other than the aforesaid, a supplementary affidavit has been filed. It has been categorically averred therein that respondent No. 5 had been in possession of a driving license to drive LMV vehicles since 2009 and was further authorized to drive light transport vehicles since 13.10.2017. The requisite training certificate in this respect has been appended along with as Annexure R-5/1. Besides the aforesaid, in the supplementary affidavit, it has been averred that there is no upper age prescribed for the promotional post and that, at the time of promotion to the post of Driver, respondent No. 5 was 41 years of age. Other than the aforesaid, along with the supplementary affidavit, orders whereby respondent No. 5 had been deputed to drive the vehicle in the absence of the regular driver have also been placed on record as Annexures R-5/1 to R-5/4. 7 12. Besides the aforesaid, two supplementary affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. In the same, it has been pointed out that the post of Driver is a promotional post for which no upper age limit is prescribed and that while making the appointment of respondent No. 5 in the present case, no infraction of the rules has been committed. The recommendations of the DPC have been justified as having been made in accordance with the rules. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. 14. From a perusal of the relevant Rules, i.e. CFS Rules, 1937 (hereinafter, for the purpose of brevity, referred to as "the Rules" i.e. Annexure R-2 at page 179 of the paper book), it is evident that appointment to all posts under the Cantonment Board are to be made either by direct recruitment or by promotion. The relevant Rule reads as follow:- Rule 5(B) (4) appointments to all posts under a Board shall be either by direct recruitment or by promotion or as provided under Rule 5-C. 15. Further, in terms of the CFS Rules, 1937, posts under the Cantonment Board are required to be classified as direct recruitment posts or promotional posts, and the posts from which appointments are to be made by way of promotion, i.e. the 8 feeder category, are required to be specified. The relevant Rules read as follows:- Rule 5(B) 5. The Central Government or such other authority as may be authorized by it in this behalf shall classify all posts under a Board into direct recruitment posts or promotion posts and specify the post or posts from which appointment shall be made to each such promotion post. 16. In pursuance to the aforesaid rules insofar as Cantonment Board Subathu is concerned, post of driver has been classified as a promotional post and it has been specified that promotion to the post of driver shall be made from lower grade employees. (See 183 of the paper book). 17. Other than the aforesaid, in the promotion Rules, it has been specified that promotion shall be made on the basis of the seniority list, subject to the rejection of those considered unfit. In this respect, it has been further clarified in the Rules that promotion to selection posts shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The relevant Rules read as follow:- Rule 5(B) 8. Appointments to promotion posts shall be made [by the appointing authority] on the basis of seniority lists maintained for this purpose by the Board, subject to rejection of those considered unfit: [SRO 296 Dt. 9.11.1981] Provided that promotion to selection post shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. [SRO 334 dt. 23.11.1972] 9 18. The post of Driver has been classified, in terms of the Rules, insofar as the Cantonment Board is concerned, as a selection post. (See page 185 of the paper book.) 19. The age embargo insofar as direct recruitment is concerned, contained in Rule 5 B (2), is not applicable to promotional post in view of the proviso contained in Rule 5B(3), the same reads as follow:- “5-B (2) No person aged below eighteen years and more than twenty five years shall be appointed to any post under a Board:- Provided that the Officer Commanding-in- Chief, the Command, may, if he considers it necessary so to do and subject to any directions issued by the Central Government in this behalf, relax the aforesaid age limits generally or specially, with reference to specified categories or specific cantonments or with reference to individual cases to such extent as he considers appropriate. 3. 3. No person who has not been declared medically fit by the authorized medical attendant and who does not possesses the minimum qualifications and experience, as may be specified for each post by the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, shall be appointed to any service under a Board: Provided that the minimum qualification specified as aforesaid shall not operate to the disadvantage of an existing servant for continuance in the post to which he has been appointed or for appointment or promotion.” 20. The Court has no power to ignore the aforesaid rules/provisions. No mandamus contrary to the aforesaid rules/provisions can be issued by this court. A Court cannot confer benediction impelled by only sympathetic consideration. 10 From a perusal of the seniority list placed on record i.e. Annexure R-1 filed with the reply of respondents No. 1 to 4, it is evident that both Rajender Kumar and Sushil Kumar are senior to the petitioner. Both the said individuals had opted for being considered for the promotional post of driver as is evident from the proceedings of the minute of the selection committee held on 26.10.2017 i.e. Annexure R-2 filed alongwith the reply of respondents No. 1 to 4. Both the said individuals do possess the requisite necessary academic qualification and are holders of valid driving license. 21. In the aforesaid back-drop, the appointment of Rajender Kumar (Respondent No.5) cannot be faulted with. In view thereof, promotion order (Annexure P-8) calls for no interference. Other than the aforesaid, from the pleadings, in the case at hand, it is evident that subsequent to passing of order dated 17.10.2017 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner, in the case at hand had made two representations dated 28.9.2017 (Annexure P-4) and dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure P-6). Both the representations were considered in the DPC proceedings, since the name of the petitioner had been considered by the Departmental Promotional Committee for further promotion to the post of driver, no infirmity can be found in the decision-making process, therefore, the petition, being devoid of any merit, is 11 dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 10th July, 2026 tarun