2026:HHC:35187 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4879 of 2025 Decided on : 13.08.2026 Sh.Bind Kumar …Petitioner Versus The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & Ors …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Parmod Singh Thakur, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief:- “(i). To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (AE) from January, 2024, with all consequential benefits of seniority, salary, pensionary benefits, and other service benefits. “ 2. The issue involved in this writ petition is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner, who is a retired employee of the respondent- Board, was serving as an Additional Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer, when a DPC was held by the respondent-Board for considering eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was to be considered from the category of Non-Diploma Holder/Junior 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2026:HHC:35187 Engineer. In terms of the DPC, 35 Non-Diploma Holders were found eligible and falling within the zone of consideration for promotion against the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The name of the petitioner in the said list was at Serial No.3. Further, there was a Note of the Departmental Promotion Committee that as far as Non-Diploma Holders/Junior Engineers were concerned, officials appearing at Serial No.3 namely Bind Kumar (petitioner) and Serial No.14, namely, Rajeev Gupta shall be promoted and then retired from HPSEBL Services, and in light of this fact, more names were included in the panel of consideration up to Serial No.20. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his name having been recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion against the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) when promotion order was issued on 31.07.2024, his name was not included in the said promotion order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the act of the respondents of not conferring promotion upon the petitioner in terms of the recommendations of DPC is completely arbitrary and discriminatory in the facts of the case. He submitted that the petitioner was at the fag end of his service career when his name was recommended by the DPC for promotion against the post of Assistant Engineer. He submitted that infact this was the last promotion, which he could have earned in his entire service career. He further submitted that the petitioner retired as a 3 2026:HHC:35187 Junior Engineer on 31.07.2024. 5. By referring to the reply filed by the respondent-Board, learned counsel argued that the justification which has been given in the reply as to why the petitioner was not promoted, is that this was done in view of the rationalisation process which was initiated by the Competent Authority of the respondent-Board pursuant to directives issued by HPERC from time to time. As per him, there is no other reason mentioned in the reply, on the basis whereof, promotion was denied to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel also submitted that whereas on one hand the respondent-Board denied promotion to the petitioner on the pretext of the rationalization process, Sh. Jitender Kumar, whose name was also recommended by the same DPC by appending a similar note as the petitioner, stood promoted by the respondent-Board on 31.07.2024. He referred to Annexure RA-II, which is the notification of the promotion issued by the respondent-Board with regard to Sh. Jitender Kumar. 7. Learned counsel further argued that the rationale on the basis of which, the petitioner was denied promotion is defeated by the own act and conduct of the respondent-Board, which is evident from the documents appended with the rejoinder, which demonstrate that on the recommendations of the DPC in issue, promotion orders were subsequently issued on 22.03.2025 (Annexure P-7), 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-8). He submitted that the above demonstrates that the rationalization process existed only to deny promotion to the petitioner 4 2026:HHC:35187 and when it came to conferring promotion to the other incumbents, said rationale process was thrown to wind by the respondent-Board. Accordingly, he submitted that as in the facts of this case, denial of promotion to the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the relief, as prayed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ravinder Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-Board has taken the Court through the reply filed by the Board and submitted that the factum of the name of the petitioner having been recommended by the DPC for promotion is a matter of record. He also submitted that the petitioner was considered for promotion as he was in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post in issue. Mr. Thakur, further submitted that there was no malafide on the part of the Board with regard to the non-conferment of the promotion to the petitioner, which is evident from the fact that he was duly considered by the DPC and his name also stood recommended. Mr. Thakur further submitted that the Note, which is appended against the name of the petitioner by the DPC is also a matter of record but it is apparent from the reply filed by the respondent-Board that a conscious decision was taken by the Board not to confer promotion, except two persons, who were promoted vide a promotion order dated 31.07.2024. This was done in light of the rationalization process initiated by the Competent Authority of the respondent-Board, which was pursuant to the directives issued by the HPERC from time to time. 5 2026:HHC:35187 9. Learned counsel further argued that it is settled law that no one has a fundamental right of promotion and the only right, which is conferred upon an employee is the right of consideration. He submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was duly considered by the Department. His name was not only considered, but also recommended, however, as there were directives from HPERC, calling upon the respondent-Board to rationalize the process, it was on account thereof that the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that as far as the subsequent promotion orders are concerned, they are a matter of record and those letters were issued on account of the administrative exigencies of respondent-Board. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the petition, the same be dismissed. No other point was urged. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as also the documents appended therewith. 12. The facts, which have been narrated herein above are not much in dispute. The only issue which this Court has to decide is as to whether in the peculiar facts of the case, the denial of promotion to the petitioner on the ground of rationalization is sustainable in the eyes of law or not. 13. It is settled law that an employee does not has a 6 2026:HHC:35187 fundamental right of promotion. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 209 the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right. 14. Coming to the facts of this case, herein, as obviously there were vacancies available of the post of Assistant Engineer falling to the category of Non-Diploma Holders/Junior Engineers and as the petitioner was in the zone of consideration, he was considered by the DPC for promotion against the said post. The consideration of the candidature of the petitioner resulted in his name being recommended for promotion against the post of Assistant Engineer. In these peculiar circumstances, when the name of the petitioner was not only considered by the DPC but was also recommended for promotion to the post and post was also available, this Court is of the considered view that a fundamental right of promotion stood conferred upon the petitioner. 15. It is a matter of record that despite the recommendations of the DPC, the petitioner was not promoted and retired as Junior Engineer on 31.08.2025. The reasons which have been given in the reply by the Board as to why the petitioner was not promoted, is rationalization process, which was initiated by the Competent Authority of the respondent-Board pursuant to the directives issued by the HPERC from time to time. 16. In terms of Annexure RA-11, on the basis of the 7 2026:HHC:35187 recommendations of the DPC in issue on 31.07.2024, one Sh. Vinod Kumar and one Sh. Jitender Kumar were promoted against the post of Assistant Engineer, who were belonging to the Drawing Cadre. 17. Now, infact, if indeed austerity was being followed by the respondent- Board, but then it is not understood as to what led to the issuance of the promotion orders of the said employees. 18. Not only this, in terms of the office order dated 22.03.2025, copy whereof is appended with the rejoinder as Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8 dated 22.08.2025 with Non-Diploma Holders/Junior Engineers (Electrical) were promoted against the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC, who were recommended along with the petitioner for promotion against the post of Assistant Engineer. 19. This Court fails to understand as to what was this Policy of the rationalization, which evaporated within a period of 5 to 6 months as from the date of superannuation of the petitioner. If indeed, any rationalization was being followed by the respondent-Board, then, no promotions in the near future could and shall have been made on the basis of the recommendation of the concerned DPC against the post of Assistant Engineer. However, as has been observed herein above also, while denying promotion of the petitioner on the purported ground of rationalization process, in terms of Annexures P-7 & P-9 appended with the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, 28 Junior Engineers including around 8 2026:HHC:35187 20 from the cadre of non-diploma holders were promoted against the post of Assistant Engineers and 9 Assistant Engineers (Electrical) Diploma Holders were promoted against the post of Senior Executive Engineers. The above clearly and categorically demonstrates that the plea of rationalization, which has been put forth by the respondent-Board to justify denial of promotion to the petitioner is not worth any credibility in light of the own act and conduct of the respondent-Board. 20. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the denial of promotion to the petitioner against the post of Assistant Engineer on the recommendations of the DPC dated 25.06.2024 is completely arbitrary and discriminatory. The respondent-Board erred in not promoting the petitioner against the post of Assistant Engineer on the strength of the recommendations of the DPC on the pretext of rationalization. 21. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by directing the respondent-Board to promote the petitioner against the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f 31.07.2024 that the date when Assistant Engineer (Electrical) were promoted on the recommendations of the same DPC from amongst the candidates belonging to the Drawing Cadre. The petitioner shall be entitled to monetary benefits and other consequential benefits as from 31.07.2024 and he shall be deemed to as superannuated from service of the respondent-Board from the post of Assistant Engineer. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of 9 2026:HHC:35187 accordingly. No order as to costs. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 13, 2026 (meera)