Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA
Pardeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. beldar ineligible as non-feeder category under rule 11. (Para 5) |
| 2. dehors-rules promotion void, perpetuates illegality. (Para 7) |
| 3. training non-sponsorship plea rejected due delay, no evidence. (Para 8) |
| 4. petition dismissed enforcing statutory recruitment rules. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Petitioner, Pardeep Kumar had filed an Original Application, OA No 893 of 2017 before Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and upon its abolition, the matter upon transfer, has come up before this Court as CWPOA No 1647 of 2020, seeking the following relief(s):
“(i). The respondent department may kindly be directed to promote the applicant as Pump Operator with effect from 15.03.2012, the date when said Sh. Lekh Raj was promoted as Pump Operator, with all consequential benefits.”
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case as set-up by Learned Counsel is that petitioner was engaged as a Beldar on daily wage basis on 01.01.1987 and his services were regularized as Beldar on 01.01.1997 [Annexure A-1]. It is the case of petitioner that one Shri Lekh Raj was promoted as Pump Operator by the State Authorities on 15.03.2012 [Annexure A-2], whereas, the petitioner despite being eligible for
Employee outside feeder category in recruitment rules ineligible for promotion; courts cannot direct promotion dehors statutory requirements specifying service and experience criteria.
Daily wagers' redesignation as Pump Operator Helpers prospective post-training per policy; ineligible for promotion lacking ITI certificate, feeder status, service; work charged status consideration ....
Point of Law : It was not much in dispute that when DPC was held for promotions to the post of Pump Operators, the petitioner was not promoted to the said post purportedly for want of experience cert....
Failure to pass mandatory departmental examination renders employee ineligible for gazetted promotion despite seniority, adhoc service, or pre-retirement DPC; no right to regular/notional promotion o....
The court emphasized that equitable treatment in promotions must adhere to established Recruitment Rules and allowed the petitioner to address grievances through representation.
Promotion from non-gazetted to gazetted posts requires statutory provisions; absence of such rules denies entitlement to promotion.
Promotion eligibility must be based on fairness and non-arbitrariness, ensuring all eligible candidates are considered regardless of category.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
