2026:HHC:30641 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1024 of 2019 Decided on: 21.07.2026 Madan Singh Thakur and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Radhey Shyam Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2-State. None for respondent No.3. Mr. Pankaj Choudhri, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Respondents No.5 to 7 ex-parte. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i). That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of CDPO from the feeder category of Senior Assistant as per amended R&P Rules (Annexure P- 4) while issuing the writ in the nature of Mandamus. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:30641 ii). That the respondents may be restrained from making further promotion of junior persons to the petitioners in the category of Senior Assistants to the post of CDPO while issuing the writ in the nature of Mandamus. iii) That the promotion of respondent No.3 to 7 from the post of Senior Assistants to the post of CDPO as per notification dated 18.05.2012 (annexure P- 5) may be quashed and set aside.” 2. The petitioners were initially appointed as Clerks in respondent No.2-Department and thereafter were promoted to the posts of Senior Assistants. As per the tentative seniority list of Senior Assistants as on 01.06.2007 circulated vide letter dated 15.06.2007 (Annexure P-1), petitioners No.1 to 6 have been shown at serial Nos.34, 41, 43, 50, 53 and 54 respectively. Thereafter vide office order dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure P-2), on the approval of the Government, the persons who were working as Senior Assistants and Supervisors in respondent No.2-Department, were promoted to the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer, Class-II (Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs.6400-10,640/- purely on adhoc basis as a stop gap arrangement. In this order, the petitioners who were working as Senior Assistants were also promoted as Tehsil Welfare Officers (in short ‘TWOs’) on adhoc basis as a stop gap arrangement. 3. As per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (in 3 2026:HHC:30641 short ‘R&P Rules’) notified on 04.06.2007 (Annexure P-3) for the post of Child Development Project Officer (in short ‘CDPO’), Class-II (Gazetted) in the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh, 80% posts were to be filled up by promotion and 20% by direct recruitment. Out of 80% quota, 25% posts were to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Assistant Child Development Project Officers having at least 5 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade; 25% by promotion from amongst the ‘TWOs’ having at least 5 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade; and 30% by promotion from amongst the Statistical Assistants having at least 5 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade. 4. Respondent No.1 issued Notification on 16.01.2012, whereby the R&P Rules for the post of ‘CDPO’ were amended. As per these amended R&P Rules, 90% posts were to be filed up by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. Out of 90% quota for promotion, 25% by promotion from amongst Assistant Child Development 4 2026:HHC:30641 Project Officers having at least 5 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade; 20% by promotion from amongst the Tehsil Welfare Officers having at least 5 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade; 20% by promotion from amongst the Statistical Assistants having at least 5 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered, if any, in the grade; and 25% by promotion from amongst the Senior Assistants having at least 12 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service, rendered, if any, in the grade. 5. It has been averred in the petition that after amending the R&P Rules on 16.01.2012 (Annexure P-4), respondents No.3 to 7, who were junior to the petitioners and working as Senior Assistants, have been promoted to the higher post of ‘CDPO’, which has caused grave injustice to the petitioners. It has further been averred that unrevised pay scale of the post of ‘TWO’ as on 01.01.1996 was Rs.6400-10640/- and that of ‘CDPO’ was Rs.7000-10860/- and with the revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the ‘TWO’ has been granted the grade pay of Rs.4200/-, 5 2026:HHC:30641 whereas the ‘CDPO’ has been granted the pay grade of Rs.4400/-, as such, the post of ‘CDPO’ is admittedly higher in rank. The petitioners have their lien on the posts of Senior Assistant and their names also figure in the seniority list of Senior Assistants and, therefore, they could not have been ignored for promotion under the category of Senior Assistant and they had got the vested and fundamental right to be considered against 25% quota prescribed under the amended Rules from the feeder category of Senior Assistant. It has further been averred in the petition that the action on the part of the respondents-Department in promoting respondents No.3 to 7 from the post of Senior Assistant to the post of CDPO, who are definitely junior to the petitioners, as per the amended Rules is illegal, unjust, discriminatory and against the amended R&P Rules, which have caused grave injustice and harm to the petitioners. 6. The petitioners have admitted that they had given the option for their promotion from the post of Senior Assistant to the post of ‘TWO’ on regular basis, but despite that their prayer was not accepted and they were promoted on adhoc basis as stop gap arrangement and they are working on the post of ‘TWO’ for the last about 3 years and 6 2026:HHC:30641 as such prayed for direction to the respondents to consider their cases for promotion to the post of ‘CDPO’ from the feeder category of Senior Assistant as per the amended R&P Rules (Annexure P-4). It has also been averred that respondents-Department may kindly be restrained from making further promotion of junior persons in the category of Senior Assistant to the post of ‘CDPO’. 7. Respondents No.1 & 2 filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary submissions that the petitioners were promoted to the post of ‘TWO’ on adhoc basis after obtaining options from them, as required under instructions of the Government contained in para 16.26 of chapter 16 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol-I, according to which, the Government servant, who has more than one channel of promotion, his option is required to be obtained. The option once exercised cannot be taken back as per the above instructions. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim promotion to the post of ‘CDPO’. It has further been averred that the petitioners had exercised their options and at that point of time, the feeder categories were from amongst the Senior Assistants and Supervisors @30% and 20%, respectively, possessing the requisite qualification/service in 7 2026:HHC:30641 the grade. As per the R&P Rules to the post of CDPO, which was notified on 16.01.2012, the category of Senior Assistant has been added as one of the feeder category. The petitioners were already promoted to the posts of ‘TWO’ on 25.02.2009 after obtaining option and thus have no claim for consideration to the posts of ‘CDPO’. The petitioners were promoted to the posts of ‘TWO’ on adhoc basis as they had given their consent to be promoted as such. The promotions were made on adhoc basis due to the pendency of Original Application No.19 of 2008 filed by the HP Samanya Varg Karmachari Kalyan Maha Sangh vide which 85th Constitutional Amendment was challenged. Had the same not been challenged, the petitioners would have been promoted on regular basis. The respondents are taking necessary steps to promote them on regular basis by holding meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee shortly. 8. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No.1 & 2 and controverted the facts. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 10. It is not in dispute that before promotion of the 8 2026:HHC:30641 petitioners to the post of ‘TWO’, their option was sought and they gave options. Further, at the time of promotion to the post of ‘TWO’, the Senior Assistants can either opt for promotion to the posts of ‘TWO’ or to the posts of Superintendents Grade-II. The post of Superintendent Grade-II was to be filled up 100% by promotion from amongst the Senior Assistants possessing six years regular service or regular combined with adhoc (rendered upto 31.03.1991) service and the posts of ‘TWO’ were to be filled up 50% by direct recruitment on regular basis or on contract basis, 30% by promotion from amongst Senior Assistants having five years regular service or regular combined service with continuous service rendered if any in the grade and 20% by promotion from amongst the Supervisors having eight years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered if any, in the grade. No doubt when the petitioners were promoted to the posts of ‘TWO’, there were no promotional avenues to the post of ‘CDPO’ from the feeder category of ‘TWO’. However, once they had given their option to be promoted to the post of ‘TWO’, they cannot turn around and claim their promotion from the feeder category of Senior Assistant. It is true that 9 2026:HHC:30641 some of the private respondents are junior to the petitioners, but when the R&P Rules were promulgated by the respondent-State as per Notification dated 16.01.2012, they were holding the post of Senior Assistant and have been considered for promotion to the posts of ‘CDPO’ under the quota fixed for the Senior Assistants. 11. At this stage, it is apt to reproduce para 16.26 of the instructions contained in the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-I which reads as under: “[Referred to in para 16.26] …….. Subject:- Promotions in respect of the posts having more than one channel instructions regarding. I am directed to say that it has been observed that in various recruitment and promotion rules framed and adopted by the Departments if there is more than one channels of promotion from the feeder post(s) to the next higher post(s), at the time of promotion in many cases, no options are obtained from the persons who are in the field of eligibility at a latter stage as sometimes the person so promoted indicates that he has preferred for being promoted against the second channel of promotion. To prevent this from occurring in case referred to as above, options should invariably be obtained from the persons concerned and kept in the records before he is considered for promotions against one of the channels provided in the rules. The receipt of this letter may please be acknowledged.” 12. As per these instructions, if there is more than one channels of promotion from feeder (posts), to the next 10 2026:HHC:30641 higher post(s), an option is to be sought before making promotion. In such cases, the incumbent promoted to one category of post after accepting all formalities seek preference for being promoted against the second channel of promotion and therefore, to prevent this from occurring, an option should invariably be obtained from the persons concerned and kept in record before he or she is considered for promotion against one of the channels provided in the Rules. Once the petitioners had exercised their option before promotions on adhoc basis to the posts of TWOs, subsequently they cannot turn around and claim that their candidature ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of CDPO considering them in the seniority list of Senior Assistants, since they were not permanently absorbed in the Department. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that once the petitioners were promoted on adhoc basis, they had the lien on the post of Senior Assistant, but that does not give any right to them to be considered from the category of Senior Assistant, more particularly when as per the amendment carried out in the R&P Rules, the interest of the category of the petitioners 11 2026:HHC:30641 has also been taken care of when 20% quota has been fixed for promotion from amongst the TWOs, having requisite service in the cadre. No doubt, the persons, who were junior to the petitioners in the seniority list of Senior Assistants have been promoted after promulgation of the R&P Rules on 16.01.2012, but their candidature has been considered under the category of Senior Assistants, and once they were fulfilling the requisite qualification and further the vacancies were available in their quota, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance, especially when they have not enjoyed the fruits of the posts held by the petitioners, i.e. of Tehsil Welfare Officers. 14. It is true that the persons, who are junior to the petitioners initially recruited have been promoted earlier to them, but at the same time, it is only on account of the subsequent R&P Rules which were framed by the State Government when 25% quota was fixed to the category of Senior Assistant and it seems that it was on account of the fact that the persons in the category of Senior Assistants were getting less chances of their promotion to the posts of TWO and, therefore, to advance substantial justice and also to give more chances of promotion to the Senior Assistants, 12 2026:HHC:30641 the State Government had amended the Rules and by virtue of amendment and further after following the requisite criteria as provided in the Rules, they have been promoted to the posts of CDPO earlier to them. Once the petitioners had given their option to be promoted to the post of ‘TWO’ and promoted though on adhoc basis, but it was only for the reason that the litigation was pending and on account of the pendency of the original application, they were promoted on adhoc basis. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L.R. Patil vs. Gulbarga University, Gulbarga, AIR 2023 Supreme Court 5214 to contend that since the petitioners were holding the post of TWO on adhoc basis, their lien was on the posts of Senior Assistants from which they were promoted to the post of TWO. No doubt as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that a person retains a lien against the previous post, if appointed to another post on adhoc basis, and such lien ceases only when the person is appointed substantively to another post and in case of the petitioners since they were not substantively appointed to the post of Tehsil Welfare 13 2026:HHC:30641 Officer, their candidature was also required to be considered for promotion to the post of CDPO. However, in the present case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not attracted for the reason that though the lien of the petitioners was to the post of Senior Assistants, but once they had given option for their promotion to the post of Tehsil Welfare Officer, irrespective of the fact that they were appointed on adhoc basis, they could not have been considered under the category of Senior Assistants, especially when the instructions issued by the State Government contained the para 16.26 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters, clearly provide that when the Government servant has more than one channel of promotion and once the option is exercised, the same cannot be taken back. In the present case, admittedly the petitioners had given the option before their promotion to the post of TWO and the petitioners have not raised challenge to the said instructions, which clearly provides that if there are more than one channel of promotion, the petitioner once opted for a particular channel even if it is disadvantageous to his career, he cannot withdraw his option and opt for another channel of promotion. As already 14 2026:HHC:30641 discussed above, initially there was no quota prescribed to the category of Senior Assistant to the post of CDPO. However, it was only after issuance of Notification dated 16.01.2012, when the quota to the Senior Assistant was provided for making promotion to the post of CDPO. 16. The same very issue where the person had once exercised option for promotion having two channels of promotion was considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No.2 of 2008, titled, Neelam Kaushal versus State of H.P. & others and held that if option is taken then even if lien is retained that will not help the employee. Since in the present case, the option was given by the petitioners before their promotion to the posts of TWO, they cannot claim their promotion to the post of CDPO under the category of Senior Assistants, especially when they were holding the post of TWO. 17. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 21 st July , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge