SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Prakash Chand and another - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another - Respondent
CWPOA No.7196 of 2020
Decided On : 19-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ganesh Barowalia Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General

No vested right to promotion under old recruitment rules when new rules apply; consideration governed by rules in force on promotion date, absent mandate for pre-amendment vacancies.

Headnote:(A) Recruitment & Promotion Rules - Amendment - Employees have no vested right to seek consideration or promotion under old rules existing prior to new rules notified subsequently; claim for promotion from 2010 untenable absent proof of juniors promoted or departmental committee convened yearly under old rules, and due to lower seniority in non-selection post where seniors promoted in 2011. Promotions governed by rules in force on date of consideration; no universal rule mandating pre-amendment vacancies filled by old rules unless expressly provided. (Paras 5(i), 5(ii), 5(iii))

(B) Recruitment & Promotion Rules - Relaxation - Court cannot mandate approval of proposal for one-time relaxation in qualification for promotional post; lies in domain of authorities to examine in accordance with law. (Paras 6, 8, 9(v))

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought quashing of rejection order and promotion to post of laboratory technician with effect from 2010 under old recruitment and promotion rules providing 20% promotion from laboratory attendants possessing matriculation with science. New rules notified later required higher qualifications like 10+2 with science and diploma/B.Sc. in medical laboratory technology, which petitioners lacked. Seniors promoted under old rules in 2011 due to higher seniority.

Findings of Court:
Rejection order upheld; claim for promotion under old rules disallowed; non-promotion due to lower seniority not infirm; action under new rules justified for want of qualifications; authorities directed to examine proposal for one-time relaxation.

Issues: Whether petitioners entitled to promotion under old rules despite new rules and lack of qualifications; validity of rejection order; interference in non-promotion due to seniority; mandate on relaxation proposal.

Ratio Decidendi: No vested right to old rules; right to consideration arises under rules prevailing on date of promotion process; government entitled to policy decision not to fill pre-amendment vacancies by old rules for cadre efficiency, subject to Article 14; principle distinguishing broader propositions on pre-amendment vacancies. Result : Petition disposed of; rejection upheld; promotion claims rejected.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek promotion under old rules; ineligible under new due to qualifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. no vested right in old rules; promotion by rules at consideration date. (Para 5)
3. court cannot mandate relaxation proposal; direct lawful examination. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. dismiss petition; uphold rejection and new rules application. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioners, Prakash Chand and Vijay Kumar, have come up before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:-

“7(A) That this Original Application may kindly be allowed and the respondent department may kindly be directed to promote the applicants to the post of lab Technician with effect from 2010 as per old R & P Rules, with all consequential benefits along with seniority and other benefits, in the interest of law and justice.

7(B) That rejection order dated 15-06-2016 Annexure A-4 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. In nutshell, the grievance of the petitioners is that they are seeking promotion of Laboratory Technician on the basis of Recruitment and Promotion Rules from 2010. Pertinently, the State Authorities have issued The Himachal Pradesh, Department of Ayurveda, Laboratory Technician, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2013, on 11.02.2013 [Annexure A-5] and as per Rules-10 and 11, promotional post of Laboratory Technician is to be filled up, 20% by promotion from amongst the Laboratory Attendants/Laboratory Assistants, subject to possessing of educational qualification prescribed in Column No.7 (i) of the Rules; i.e. 10+2 with Science or its equivalent and (ii) Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from an Institution duly recognized by the Himachal Pradesh/Central Government or B.Sc. Degree in Medical Laboratory Technology from a recognized University or Institution recognized by Himachal Pradesh Government/Central Government.

STAND OF RESPONDENTS-STATEAUTHORITIES:

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the State Authorities have filed a Reply-Affidavit, stating that as per the existing Recruitment & Promotion Rules notified on 11.02.2013 [Annexure A-5], the petitioners are not eligible for want of educational and technical qualifications. It is stated that the petitioners cannot seek consideration/promotion on the basis of the old Rules when, the New Rules have been notified on 11.02.2013 [Annexure A-5].

NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONERS:

4. Petitioners chose not to file a rejoinder.

However, prayed for early hearing for which an application i.e. CMP(T) No.535 of 2022 was filed on 21.06.2022. Even thereafter, neither any prayer for rejoinder was made nor was it filed.

ANALYSIS:

5. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the claim of the petitioners for promotion as Laboratory Technicians as per the Old Rules which existed prior to issuance of New Rules on 11.02.2013 [Annexure A-5], cannot pass the test of Judicial Scrutiny, for the following reasons:-

5(i). The petitioners have no vested right to seek consideration or promotion under Old Rules, which existed prior to issuance of New Rules on 11.02.2013 [Annexure A-5].

5(ii). The petitioners cannot claim promotion under Old Rules from the year 2010, when, the petitioners have not been able to show that their juniors were promoted and petitioners were left out between 2010 till issuance of New Rules on 11.02.2013 [Annexure A-5]. Nothing has been placed on record to assert that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified by State Authorities provided for convening the Departmental Promotion Committee every year as per the Old Rules, which was not done. Even the promotion under Old Rules is not automatic. It is for the State Authorities to decide as to when and in what manner and to what extent any of the vacancies are to be filled up. Issuance of any mandate that the vacancies in the promotional cadre of Laboratory Technicians should have been filled up under O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top