Promotion effective from date granted, not vacancy date; DPC recommendations advisory, no right to retrospective effect despite litigation delays; ad hoc promotions regularized notionally from ad hoc date.

JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting convened on 04.04.2011 considered the petitioners for promotion to the posts of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service (HPAS) against vacancies of the year 2010 and accordingly made its recommendations. The recommendations could not be accepted and acted upon owing to litigations and orders passed therein. Respondent-State however, promoted the petitioners as HPAS on ad hoc basis on 09.11.2011. After finalization of litigation, review DPC was convened on 14.11.2019. The review DPC’s recommendations qua the petitioners remained the same. The recommendations were accepted by the Competent Authority and petitioners’ regular promotion order was issued on 02.12.2019. They were ordered to be treated as promoted notionally w.e.f. 09.11.2011 to 01.12.2019 and on actual basis w.e.f. 02.12.2019.

The Petitioners seeks direction to the respondents to order their regular promotion w.e.f. the year 2010 on the count that DPC in its meeting convened on 04.04.2011 and also in review DPC meeting convened on 14.11.2019 had considered their cases for promotion against vacancies of the year 2010. Prayer has also been made for quashing and setting aside the office orders passed by the respondents on 09.11.2011 & 02.12.2019 and also the order whereby, petitioners’ representation, seeking such relief, was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

3. The Case

3(i) In the year 2010, respondent-Department initiated the process for convening meeting of DPC for making promotions to the posts of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services (HPAS). Petitioners belonged to feeder category of Non-Tehsildar and were eligible for promotion. It appears that documentation for the purpose of convening meeting of the DPC could not be completed. In the meanwhile, CWP No. 491 of 2011 (Surinder Mohan Saini & Ors Vs. State of H.P and others ) was instituted. Following order was passed in the said writ petition on 21.01.2011:-

“The respondents No. 1 to 3 are permitted to hold DPC but result thereof shall not be declared without leave of the Court”

The DPC’s meeting for making promotions to the post of HPAS from Non-Tehsildar Category was convened on 04.04.2011. The committee considered the petitioners for promotion against the vacancies of the year 2010 and accordingly made its recommendations. Respondents did not process the minutes of the DPC in view of the interim order passed on 21.01.2011 in Surinder Mohan Saini.

3(ii) Interim order dated 21.01.2011 passed inSurinder Mohan Saini was modified on 18.06.2011, relevant portion of which reads as under:-

“8. The learned Additional Advocate General brings to the notice of the Court that the DPC has already been held on 4.4.2011 and only the case of those who have joined the service upto the year 2000/2002 have been considered. In that event, it is made clear that the case of the private respondents shall be excluded for the time being. In case more candidates are to be considered, the same shall be considered in accordance with seniority considering the case of the private respondents alongwith those candidates who have joined the service in the year 2000/2002. There will also be a direction to the Government to take appropriate action in the light of the above order. It is made clear that in case the cases of the private respondents have also been recommended by the DPC, for the time being, further proceedings in their case shall be deferred. In case those vacancies are also to be filled up, it will be open to the Government and the DPC to hold fresh DPC for filling up those posts. It is made clear that the arrangements as above shall be provisional and subject to the result of the w