##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:10246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.1070 of 2019

Decided on: 06 ^th April, 2026 __________________________________________________________________ Thakur Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

By way of the present petition, the petitioners have

prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“a) That impugned act of the respondents above H stated, which amounts to executive inaction, may very

kindly be quashed and set aside and further respondents may very kindly be directed and commanded to look into the matter and get the requisite courses done from the persons in the category of Armourers in time henceforth and for the persons, who are waiting for the same since long, may very kindly be ordered to be treated specially by getting the courses done immediately and then said persons may kindly be promoted to further posts with all

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 19:32:04 :::CIS

2

consequential benefits.

b) That promotions as made to the non-existent posts in the category of petitioners may very kindly be ordered to be made immediately to the posts which are existing, as per Standing Orders at least from the date the same were made to the nHon-existent posts with all

consequential benefits of pay, seniority etc. etc.;”

2. The precise grouse of thef petitioners in the present petition is that since there is no post of Assistant Sub Inspector, as evident from perusal of Annexure P/2, the respondents ought to have pruomoted the petitioners to the post of Sub Inspector, since both of them were having 5 years’ service as

Head Constable.

3. The respondents filed reply to the petition and admitted that no post of A.S.I. has been sanctioned. However, as per the Rules or Standing Orders, under which the petitioners are governed, do not provide for promotion on the rank of Head Constable to Sub Inspector. It has been provided in the Standing Order that Head Constables shall be promoted to the rank of A.S.I. and not directly to the rank of the Sub Inspectors notwithstanding the fact that there is no post of

::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 19:32:04 :::CIS

3

A.S.I. (Armourer). As per the Standing Order issued on 21.05.2004, the following provision has been prescribed, which

reads as under:-

“Head Constables (Armourer) with a minimum of 5 years of service who have passed Armourer course Grade-II as prescribfed for CPMF/EME will be considered eligoible for promotion to the rank of

Assistant Sub Inspector (Armourer).”

4. As per the aforesaid provision, Head Constable (Armourer) with ua minimum of 5 years’ service, who have passed Armourer Course Grade-II prescribed for CPMF/EME, will be considered eligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant

Sub Inspector (Armourer).

5. In the case of the petitioners, both of them have not passed Armourer Course Grade-II, which is mandatory as per Standing Order for promotion to the Rank of A.S.I. (Armourer). Further as per the Standing Order of promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector (Armourer), Grade-I Course has to be passed, but both the petitioners have not passed even Grade-II Course and were promoted to the rank of A.S.I., by relaxing the provisions

::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 19:32:04 :::CIS

4

of passing Armourer Course Grade-II. In view of the rank hierarchy and provision in the Standing Order, a Head Constable is not promoted directly to the rank of Sub Inspector

and thus the respondents prayed for rejection of the petition.

6. I have heard Mr. Ajayf Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by