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

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2597

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA


( 2026:HHC:16479 )


CWPOA No.261 of 2019


Varinder Chauhan .......Petitioner

versus

State of H.P. and others. ...Respondents


Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

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

For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1, 2 and 5.

None for respondents No.3 and 4.

Mr. Vikas Kumar, Ms. Shalini Bhickta, Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Mr. Satish Verma are present along-with the record.


Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge


Decided on: 12th May, 2026


( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )


Judge


12th May, 2026

Petitioner Advocates:Sanjeev Bhushan ,Respondent Advocate: AG

##PAGE1##

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWPOA No.261 of 2019 Decided on: 12th May, 2026

Varinder Chauhan .......Petitioner

versus

State of H.P. and others. ...Respondents Coram

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bha rdwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior

uAdvocate with Mr.Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr.Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General for

respondents No.1, 2 and 5.

None for respondents No.3 and h 4.

g Mr.Vikas Kumar, Ms.Shalini Bhickta, Mr.Mukesh Kumar and i Mr.Satish Verma are present H along-with the record.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge(Oral)

The petitioner, by way of present petition, has

sought a direction to the respondents to promote him as Post Graduate Teacher (for short ‘PGT) (School Cadre Lecturer, Commerce) w.e.f. December, 2002, i.e. from the date when his

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

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 01:24:02 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

2

juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits of pay,

arrears and seniority etc. P

2. The facts, that emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (for short ‘TGT’) on 02.12.1999 and joine d his duties on 03.12.1999. After joining the servioce, the petitioner improved his qualification and obtained de gree of Masters of Commerce (in short M.Com.) in trhe month of April, 2002. The respondents-State had convened the Departmental Promotion Committee(in short DPC) for promotion to the post of Lecturer School Cadre (Commerce) on 20.11.2002, however, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered though juniors to him were considered and promoted to the post of Lecturer School Cadre (Commerce stream). The petitioner has specifically mentioned in the petition that respondent No.3 was appointed as TGT on 16.02.2002 and respondent No.4 on 09.12.1999. He has further mentioned the name of one Manoj Kumar, who was appointed as TGT on 29.04.2000. The petitioner represented to respondent No.2, by way of written representation, who had assured him that in the next meeting of the DPC to be held in April, 2003, his name will be considered and he will be promoted from the due date, when

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 01:24:02 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

3

the persons junior to him were promoted. The petitioner

under a legitimate belief waited for convening of theP DPC in April, 2003, but again his name was not considered for promotion to the post of PGT. It has been averred that the action on the part of the respondents in n ot considering his candidature for promotion earliero to his juniors, is illegal, wrong, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as against the Rr&P Rules. The action on the part of the respondents-State is also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that the persons junior to the petitioners were considered and promoted to the

post of PGT.

3. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and admitted that the promotions to the post of Lecturers were made on 20.11.2002, not in December, 2002. As per seniority list of TGT, the petitioner was assigned seniority No.9076, whereas, the above named persons namely, Kuldeep Kumar, Kuldeep Chand and Manoj Kumar (SC) have been assigned seniority No.8009-A, 7815-A and 8139, respectively. The respondents-State have not denied the averments made in the petition that the petitioner had acquired the qualification to be considered for promotion to the post of

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 01:24:02 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

4

Lecturer School Cadre (Commerce stream). The respondents-

State have also not even disputed the date(s) of joininPg of the petitioner as well as the other persons mentioned above. The plea taken is that the petitioner was assigned seniority after the aforementioned persons. The responde nts-State have also mentioned that the

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