Point of Law: Vacancies which arose prior to amendment of Rules should be filled up only in accordance with un-amended Rules, disposed of petition reserving liberty to respondents/State to review any promotion granted to any ineligible or unqualified person.

ORDER :

1. By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners to issue direction to the respondents to execute the judgment dated 22.6.2008 passed by this Court in CWP (T) No. 8902 of 2008 titled Nand Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others.

2. Precisely the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that by way of CWP (T) No. 8902 of 2008, petitioners herein prayed for following relief:

“(i) That the action of the respondents to fill in the vacancies of the years 1999 to 2002 in accordance with the rules may be held void-ibinitio and the respondents may be directed to review DPC which has resulted in passing of the orders Annexure-A5 to A8 may be reviewed and the respondents may be directed to convene DFPC for the posts of Senior Assistants by calculating the year wise vacancies and in accordance with the rules which were in vogue at the time of occurrence of vacancies and thereafter to promote the applicants to the posts of Senior Assistants from the due dates with all consequential benefits.”

3. Coordinate Bench of this Court having taken note of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled A. Manoharan and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 641, whereby it came to be held that vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the Rules should be filled up only in accordance with the un-amended Rules, disposed of the petition reserving liberty to the respondents/State to review any promotion granted to any ineligible or unqualified person.

4. After passing of the aforesaid judgment, petitioners filed representations for considering their cases for the post of Senior Assistants keeping in view the fact that persons junior to them were promoted, but respondents-State vide order dated 10.12.2010, rejected the representations, as a result of which, petitioners were compelled to approach this Court again by way of CWP No. 6116 of 2011-G. Learned Single Bench of this court vide judgment dated 21.6.2012 (Annexure E-2), set-aside order dated 10.12.2010 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in accordance with law from the date their juniors were considered and promoted. While passing aforesaid order, learned Single Judge categorically ordered that all consequential benefits, if any, other than seniority be also accorded to the petitioners.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid direction issued by the learned Single Judge, respondents/State preferred LPA No. 468 of 2012, which came to be disposed of on 10.11.2014, whereby the coordinate Bench of this Court, observed that observation made in paras-8 to 10 of the judgment shall not come in the way of the appellants (respondent-State), in considering the case of the petitioners.

6. Since despite passing of the aforesaid judgment dated 10.11.2014 in the aforesaid LPA, no action was taken by the respondents, petitioners approached this Court by way of COPC No 809 of 2015, praying therein for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated. Coordinate Bench of this Court while directing the respondents to pass fresh consideration order categorically observed that respondents have not gone through the judgment dated 27.5.2010 rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP (T) No. 8902 of 2008, wherein court having taken note of the submissions made by the then learned Senior Additional Advocate General reserved liberty to the State to review any promotion granted to any ineligible or unqualified person. Court further observed in the order that respondents were to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the said judgment and pass consideration order. Vide aforesaid order, court directed the respondent to consider case of the petitioner in light of the judgment dated 27.5.2010, passed by coordin