2026:HHC:7711 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 980 of 2019 Decided on : 17.03.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Sharmil Lata ...Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocate vice. Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Respondent No. 3 already proceeded ex-parte. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the order dated 19.06.2014 at Annexure P-6 to the extent of respondent No.3, whereby she has been ordered to be promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer, may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice. ii) That the respondents may further be directed to promote the petitioner as Senior Scale Stenographer, in view of the recommendations of the DPC convened on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:7711 21.11.2013 w.e.f. the due date with all consequential benefits.” 2. The grouse of the petitioner as canvased by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the respondents had convened the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred as DPC) for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on 21.11.2013, but did not culminate the said process. Despite making representation by the petitioner, no action was taken, which compelled the petitioner to institute the writ petition before this Court bearing CWP No. 3886 of 2014, titled, Sharmil Lata vs. State of HP and another. The said writ petition was disposed of on 03.06.2014, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 04.01.2014 made by the petitioner, by passing a speaking order, within ten weeks from today. 3. The said representation made by the petitioner came to be rejected on 28.07.2014 (page 72), recording therein that earlier proceedings of the DPC and the panel of DPC for the calendar year 2013 have been found to have exhausted on 31.12.2013 and thus the same is null and void. A fresh DPC was held on 16.06.2014 to consider/examine the eligible Junior Scale Stenographers, 3 2026:HHC:7711 subject to their fitness for filling up the posts of Senior Scale Stenographers. The DPC after examining the service record, ACRs of respondent No.3 and Jasmer Singh, Junior Scale Stenographers, who were at Serial Nos.1 & 2 in seniority list of Junior Scale Stenographers, recommended their names for promotion against two posts of Senior Scale Stenographers, whereas the petitioner, who was Junior Scale Stenographer stood at Serial No.3 in the Seniority list and, therefore, could not be considered, because there was only two vacancies of Senior Scale Stenographer in the Police Department. 4. The petitioner has placed on record the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (hereinafter referred as R&P Rules) for the post of Senior Scale Stenographer (Annexure P-2). The post of Senior Scale Stenographer is to be filled up 100% by promotion from amongst the Junior Scale Stenographers with at least five years’ regular service/regular combined with continuous adhoc service in the grade, failing which by deputation/transfer from amongst the incumbents of this post working in the identical pay scale from other H.P. Government Department. Further the post is a non-selection post. The petitioner has 4 2026:HHC:7711 averred that despite the fact that respondent No.3 was found unfit and ineligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer, a review DPC was convened on 19.06.2014 and she was illegally promoted as such. 5. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and stated that two posts of Senior Scale Stenographer were lying vacant as on 30.06.2013 and 30.09.2013, respectively. The DPC was convened on 20.11.2013 to examine the service record of the eligible Junior Scale Stenographers for their promotion to the posts of Senior Scale Stenographers for the calendar year 2013. In the said DPC, name of respondent No.3 was at Serial No. 1, but due to adverse/ average remarks recorded in her ACR for the reporting year 2008-2009 to 2011-2012, the DPC found her unfit/ineligible for promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. The DPC had recommended the petitioner and another Junior Scale Stenographer for their promotion, however, the proceedings could not be approved for the reason that respondent No.3 had made a representation on 30.11.2013. Since adverse remarks were not conveyed to respondent No.3 within the time schedule as prescribed for 5 2026:HHC:7711 conveying the adverse remarks, the said adverse remarks in the ACR for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 were ordered to be expunged, vide order dated 22.02.2014 (Annexure R-2/1) and further as per office order dated 22.05.2014, the average remarks recorded in the ACR of respondent No.3 for the year 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11, were also expunged (Annexure R-2/3). Thereafter, as per the recommendations of the DPC held on 16.06.2014, respondent No.3 was promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer vide office order dated 19.06.2014 along with Sh. Jasmer Singh (Annexure R-2/4). 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2-State and also gone through the record carefully. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, when not offered the appointment as Senior Scale Stenographer, despite making representation by her, had approached this Court and this Court vide judgment dated 03.06.2014 had directed the Director General of Police to decide representation dated 04.01.2014. The said representation was decided and the claim raised by the petitioner was 6 2026:HHC:7711 rejected vide order dated 28.07.2014 (page-72). This office order has not been assailed by the petitioner, though the copy of the same was placed on record by the respondents- State, along with its reply filed on 22.11.2014. 8. It is not in dispute that the post of Senior Scale Stenographer is a non-selection post. In a non-selection post, the seniority has to be given precedence over merit. It is also not in dispute that the adverse remarks made against respondent No.3 were expunged, as noticed above. Once the Competent Authority had expunged the adverse remarks and the post of Senior Scale Stenographer being non-selection post and respondent No.3 being senior to the petitioner was rightly promoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. The petitioner cannot have any grievance against the orders passed in favour of respondent No. 3, whereby her adverse remarks were expunged. Not only this, even in the present petition, the petitioner has not laid challenge to the said orders passed by the Competent Authority. Once the Competent Authority after noticing the fact that respondent No. 3 was not communicated about the adverse ACR’s, as evident from the supplementary affidavit filed by the Director General of Police in compliance with the 7 2026:HHC:7711 order dated 18.12.2015 passed by this Court, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. 9. It is not the case of the petitioner that the representation made by her was not considered by the Competent Authority, especially when she after receipt of the reply, with which order of rejection of her representation was also annexed, had filed rejoinder and even while filing the rejoinder, no such prayer had been made to quash the said order. Since the petitioner has not assailed the basic order, whereby her representation was rejected claiming her promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer as per the recommendations of the DPC held on 20.11.2013, the relief claimed by her cannot be granted. 10. In view of the aforementioned reasoning, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 17 th March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge