( 2026:HHC:15677 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.91 of 2019 Decided on: 07.05.2026 Bishan Dass Abrol ...Petitioner versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Ridhima Karol, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2-State. Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 22.2.2008, Annexure P-4/A transferring the petitioner from the post of Technical Officer, Directorate of Technical Education, Sundernagar to Government Polytechnic Banikhet against the post of Lecturer in Electrical Engineering may kindly 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits and he may be deemed to have continued on the post of Technical Officer, Directorate of Technical Education. Sundernagar. (ii) That the posting of respondent No.3 as Technical Officer in the Directorate of Technical Education Sundernagar vide order dated 20.2.2008, Annexure P-3/A may also be quashed and set aside; (iii) That the promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of Head of Department vide notification dated 5.3.2011, Annexure P-12 may be quashed and set aside and respondent department may be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the said post from the date respondent No.3 was so promoted, with all consequential benefits.” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Electrical Engineering on adhoc basis, who joined his duties on 11.08.1989 at Government Polytechnic Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. As per Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short R&P Rules), for the post of Technical Officer (Composite Curriculla Development Centre), the post is to be filled up 100% by transfer, failing which, by direct recruitment. The petitioner vide Notification dated 29.04.2006, was transferred and posted against the vacant post of Technical Officer in the Directorate of Technical Education, Sundernagar, in the public interest with immediate effect and in sequel to the said transfer order, he had joined his duties. Later on, respondent No.3 vide Notification dated 20.02.2008, was transferred and posted as 3 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) Technical Officer, in the Directorate, Sundernagar. The petitioner was transferred vide Notification dated 22.02.2008, from the Directorate of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Sundernagar to Government Polytechnic Banikhet, Distt. Chamba, H.P. against vacant post, with immediate effect, without TTA/JT. The petitioner applied for earned leave w.e.f. 25.02.2008 to 15.03.2008, however, he was relieved in absentia on 28.02.2008 and the petitioner after joining at Banikhet on 19.06.2008, made a representation to respondent No.1 regarding his transfer, wherein it was stated that the transfer order issued on 22.02.2008 is vague and arbitrary, as the transfer is neither in public interest nor in administrative exigency and that the post of Technical Officer is non- transferable. Respondent No.1 did not act on the said representation. Thereafter, the petitioner was put under suspension on 27.06.2008 (Annexure P-7) by respondent No.1 in view of the fact that it was contemplated to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. However, later on, the suspension order was revoked on 24.10.2008 (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with the articles of charge vide memorandum dated 30.01.2009 to the effect that the petitioner was transferred vide Notification dated 22.02.2008, but he did not join his duties as Lecturer Electrical Engineering in Govt. Polytechnic, Banikhet, Distt. Chamba, H.P. till 4 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) 18.06.2008. However, after receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner was exonerated of the articles of charge vide order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-11). 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that his transfer vide Notification dated 22.02.2008 was arbitrary and illegal for the reason that he had short stay at Shimla and further, the same was aimed at to post some other person so as to give benefit of promotion to the post of Head of Department. Further, as per the information received by him under the RTI, he was transferred without TTA/JT, whereas he had not made any request. The petitioner has also placed on record noting of the respondents-State and as per Annexure P-15, respondent No.1 had observed at note 226 that as per note 215, it was clearly mentioned that why proposed transfer of the petitioner was desired by the Hon’ble C.M is not prima facie in order, then, why was order issued and back reference not made. In note 215, it was recorded that the petitioner was posted against the post of Technical Officer, in the Directorate of Technical Education, Sundernagar, since 29.04.2006 and had a short stay. 10 posts of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Banikhet have been created, but these posts are to be filled on contact basis. Therefore, it is not possible to transfer the petitioner against the post of Lecturer Electrical Engineering in 5 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) Government Polytechnic Banikhet, and this noting was given on the basis of the note issued by Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister. However, later on, the Notification dated 22.02.2008 was issued and when the matter was brought to the notice of respondent No.1 who had specifically mentioned that the transfer of the petitioner as desired by the Hon’ble Chief Minister is not prima-facie in order and the implementation of the Notification may be stayed till the matter is re-examined as per note 215. Respondent No.1 had specifically mentioned that short stay cases have to be anyway referred back to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for his specific orders, unless short stay has been condoned in the U.O. note. Proposed transfers may be depicted in tabular shape. This noting was done on 28.02.2008. However, without taking any call in the matter, the petitioner was relieved in absentia on the same day. Respondent No.3 was posted after the petitioner on the post of Technical Officer, who was later on promoted as Head of the Department (Composite Curricula Development Centre) (for short ‘HoD (CCDC)’) vide Notification dated 05.03.2011, on regular basis, with immediate effect. The petitioner has also challenged the said notification on the ground that had the petitioner not been transferred to Banikhet, he would have also been considered for promotion to the post of Head of Department(CCDC). The petitioner had right of consideration 6 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) for promotion to the said post, who was denied promotion by transferring him in an illegal manner. This has resulted in violation of his fundamental right of being considered for promotion. As such he has prayed for quashing the transfer order as well as the Notification whereby respondent No.3 has been promoted to the post of HoD (CCDC). 4. Respondents No.1 & 2 filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary submission that the post of Technical Officer is filled up by way of transfer from amongst the Lecturers of all Engineering Branches, working in the identical pay scale in the Department with two years teaching experience, failing which, by direct recruitment. So far as the promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of HoD (CCDC) is concerned, the same has been done as per the R&P Rules for the post of HoD (CCDC) and the petitioner has no claim against him. Respondent No.3 had the requisite experience for being considered as eligible for the post of HoD (CCDC) and was duly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘DPC’) and was recommended for promotion to the post. Prior to the posting of the petitioner in the Directorate of Technical Education on 29.04.2006, he had been posted at Government Polytechnic Sundernagar, as Lecturer Electrical Engineering for 17 years w.e.f. 11.08.1989 on adhoc basis. So far as the charge sheet is 7 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) concerned, the State Government had taken a sympathetic view to drop the charges and the matter was closed. Since respondent No.3 was appointed as Technical Officer and the State Government had accorded approval to hold the charge of HoD (CCDC) on officiating basis, he was rightly considered for promotion to the post of HoD(CCDC). 5. Respondent No.3 filed his reply and averred that the petitioner has challenged his transfer after a period of more than 3 years and 5 months and hence the petition suffers from delay and laches. Further respondent No.3 had neither replaced nor relieved the petitioner. He had joined on a post previously occupied by one Sh. Anil Kanwar, who was senior to the petitioner as Technical Officer and said Anil Kanwar never objected to his transfer, whereby he was replaced and relieved by respondent No.3. The post of HoD (CCDC) became available on 16.02.2009, when Sh. P.P. Sharma earlier incumbent was promoted to the post of Deputy Director. Respondent No.3 was, in no manner, responsible for the transfer of the petitioner and it is within the right of the employer to transfer an employee as the transfer is an incidence of service. 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply of respondents No.1 & 2 and controverted the facts. 7. I have heard Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior counsel, 8 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) duly assisted by Ms. Ridhima Karol, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The record has also been perused carefully. 8. Before coming to the impugned orders, it would be relevant to refer to the R&P Rules for the post of HoD(CCDC) (Gazetted) Class-I in the Department of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, which provide the essential qualification for promotion to the post of HoD (CCDC). As per Rule 11, the post of HoD(CCDC) is to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Technical Officer (CCDC) with eight years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc (rendered upto 31.03.1991) service, if any, in the grade, failing which by transfer from amongst all Heads of Department in any branch of Engineering/Technology/ Architecture having two years teaching experience as such and working in the identical pay-scales in Technical Education Department/Other H.P. Government Departments failing both by direct recruitment. The relevant rule reads as under:- “In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation : By promotion from amongst the Technical Officer(CCDC) with eight years regular or 9 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) transfer, grade from which promotion/deputation/ transfer is to be made regular combined with continuous adhoc (rendered upto 31.3.1991) service, if any, in the grade, failing which by transfer from amongst all Heads of Department in any branch of Engineering/ Technology/ Architecture having two years teaching experience as such and working in the indentical pay scales in Technical Education Department/ Other H.P. Government Departments failing both by direct recruitment. Note: In all cases of promotion, the adhoc service rendered in the feederpost upto 31.3.1991, if any, prior to regular appointment to the post shall be taken into account towards the length of service as prescribed in these Rules for promotion subject to the condition that in all cases where a junior person becomes eligible for consideration by virtue of his total length of service(including the service rendered on adhoc post in view of the provisions referred to above, all persons senior to him in the respective category/post/cadre shall be deemed to be eligible for consideration and placed above the junior person in the field of consideration: Provided that all incumbents to be considered for promotion shall possess the minimum qualifying service of at least three years or that prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the Post, whichever is less: Provided further that where a person becomes ineligible to be considered for promotion on account of the requirements of the preceding proviso, the person(s) junior to him shall also be deemed to be ineligible for consideration such promotion. Explanation:- The last proviso shall not render the junior incumbents ineligible for consideration for promotion if the senior ineligible persons happened to be Ex- servicemen recruited under the provisions of Rule- 3 of Demobilised Armed Forces 10 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 and having been given the benefit of seniority thereunder or recruited under the provisions of Rule-3 of Ex- Servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Technical Services) Rules, 1985 and having been given the benefit of seniority thereunder. Note (2) Similarly, in all cases of confirmation, adhoc service rendered on the feederpost upto 31.3.1991, if any prior to the regular appointment against such post shall be taken into account towards the length of service; Provided that inter-se-seniority as a result of confirmation after taking into account, adhoc service rendered upto 31.3.1991 shall remain unchanged” 9. The petitioner as per own averments made in the petition was transferred and posted as Technical Officer vide Notification dated 29.02.2006 in the Directorate of Technical Education and thereafter was transferred vide Notification dated 22.02.2008 to Polytechnic, Banikhet. As per these R&P Rules, a person who had served as Technical Officer (CCDC) with 8 years regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc (rendered upto 31.03.1991) service, if any, in the grade, failing which by transfer from amongst all Heads of the Department were to be considered for promotion. As per these Rules, neither the petitioner was fulfilling the criteria for promotion to the post of HoD (CCDC) nor respondent No.3 on 05.03.2011, though as per Notification dated 11 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) 05.03.2011, respondent No.3 has been promoted to the post of HoD (CCDC). The petitioner has placed on record the proceedings of the DPC, wherein it has been mentioned that according to the R&P Rules for the post of HoD (CCDC), respondent No.3 and one Sh. Deepak Angra, were not fulfilling the qualifying service of eight years as Technical Officer for promotion, however, respondent No.3 possessed the requisite service of eight years in the grade, including his posting/service as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, being in the same grade. Accordingly, Director, Technical Education has recommended his case for promotion to the vacant post of HoD (CCDC). 10. Once the R&P Rules prescribe certain qualification for promotion to a post, the DPC cannot consider other qualification for promotion as has been done in the case of respondent No.3 and further, Director has no authority to recommend his name for promotion to the post of HoD (CCDC). As per R&P Rules, the promotion to the post of HoD (CCDC) was to be made from amongst the Technical Officer (CCDC) with eight years’ service, failing which, by transfer from amongst all Heads of Department in any branch of Engineering/ Technology/Architecture, having two years teaching experience as such and working in the identical pay scale in Technical Education Department/Other H.P. Government 12 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) Departments, failing which, by direct recruitment. In the case of respondent No.3, he had not worked as Head of the Department and thus, did not fulfil the qualification for promotion to the post HoD(CCDC). Possession of requisite service of 8 years, in the grade including posting/service of respondent No.3 as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering could not have been considered as eligibility for promotion which is not provided in the R&P Rules. No doubt, injustice has been caused to the petitioner who has been transferred despite the categorical note given by respondent No.1 that the implementation of Notification whereby the petitioner was transferred may be stayed till the matter is reconsidered, but the petitioner did not come to the Court at that juncture and filed the present petition after 3 more than years of his transfer and as such, the same cannot be quashed at this stage. 11. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dilip Sharma, for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet and due to this reason, he could not come to this Court at that time and further since the cause of action had accrued to him when respondent No.3 was promoted and his case was not considered, only for the reason that on the date of consideration, he was not holding the post of Technical Officer is concerned, as already noticed above, no doubt injustice has been 13 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) caused to the petitioner, but at the same time, once he did not come to the Court at that juncture, the relief claimed by him to quash the transfer order dated 22.02.2008, after more than 3 years, is not justified. As already noticed above, though respondent No.3 was not possessing the requisite qualification to be promoted to the said post of HoD (CCDC), but now after such a long period, the said promotion cannot be altered, when the petitioner was also not eligible as per R&P Rules. Further, respondent No.3 after his promotion to the post of HoD(CCDC) by the competent authority has served on the said post and now stands superannuated. 12. This Court could have accepted the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner for considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of HoD(CCDC), had he been possessing the requisite qualification when respondent No.3 was promoted. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once respondent No.3 was also considered, parity demands that the same treatment be given to him. However, this Court cannot grant negative parity. The another factor which also weighs with the Court not to accept the prayer of the petitioner at this juncture is that the petitioner has also been superannuated and, therefore, no relief can be granted to him. 13. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the petition and 14 ( 2026:HHC:15677 ) the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there is no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 07th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge