Promotion rights are determined by the rules in force at the time of consideration, not by outdated rules at the time of vacancy creation.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Precisely, the question which needs to be determined in the instant petition is that “whether a vacancy is to be filled up on the basis of rules in vogue on the date of creation thereof or whether same can only be filled under the rules existing at the time of consideration?”.

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner is officiating as Principal in respondent No.4-College since

2023, but yet he is being denied promotion against the post of Principal on regular basis on the ground that vacancy of Principal, which had actually fallen vacant on 31.05.2023 can only be filled up under the rules existing on the date of creation of vacancy, wherein retirement age was 58 years.

3. While making this Court peruse bye-laws and rules governing miscellaneous matters connected therewith (Annexure P- 22), promulgated by respondent-Trust, Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Advocate, states that though there is a fallacy in the stand taken by the respondents with regard to application of old rules, so far filling-up of post of Principal is concerned, but even if same are to be made applicable, petitioner herein could not have been denied promotion for the reason that he being a Sanskrit Teacher, otherwise is required to superannuate at the age of 60 years. He states that since petitioner has yet to attain the age of 60 years, his claim for promotion to the post of Principal, which is lying vacant for considerable time, deserves to be considered.

4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No.3 and 4 have filed reply, wherein an attempt has been made to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner on the ground that clarification sought for from Worthy Vice Chancellor, Himachal Pradesh University with regard to consideration of candidature of the petitioner against the post of Principal is still pending. It is averred in the reply that since petitioner is on extension, necessary permission is required to be taken from Himachal Pradesh University for offering appointment/promotion against the post of Principal.

5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein was offered appointment against the post of Lecturer Sanskrit in the respondent-College (Annexure P-6), in terms of bye- laws and rules, which were amended on 12.03.2024 (Annexure P-22). If the afore amended bye-laws and rules are perused in their entirety, this Court finds force in the submission of Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner herein being Lecturer in Sanskrit is otherwise required to be superannuated at the age of 60 years and not 58 years, as is being claimed by the respondents. Though, it has been claimed in the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 that petitioner herein is on extension, but no document worth credence has been placed on record showing extension, if any, granted to the petitioner, after his having attained the age of 58 years. If the amended rules, as taken note hereinabove, are read in their entirety, it clearly reveals that same have been formulated to regulate promotion, recruitment, emoluments and other condition of service and miscellaneous matters, connected with the persons appointed by respondent-Trust. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed with respondent-Trust, may be under old rules, which now stand amended, coupled with the fact that the petitioner after his having attained the age of 58 years has been permitted to continue in service, rightful claim of the petitioner for promotion against the post of Principal cannot permitted to be defeated on flimsy grounds. Though, Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, learned counsel representing the respo