HEM RAJ KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATERIAL facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner joined as Lecturer in School Cadre (Hindi) on 21.11.1988. Post of Lecturer is in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Principal. Since the Departmental Promotion Committee was contemplated to be held for the post of Principal, A.C.Rs. of School Lecturers were called for. Petitioner was in the zone of consideration. His name figured at Sr. No.333 in the seniority list. Departmental Promotion Committee for the year 2006 could not be convened. A.C.Rs. of Lecturers (School Cadre) were again called for vide letter dated 19.6.2007 for promotion to the post of Principal. The same was followed by letter dated 20.8.2007. However, fact of the matter is that the Departmental Promotion Committee was not convened in the year 2007 also. The State Government took a conscious decision to grant extension in service to the petitioner for a period of two years. This decision was taken vide letter dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure A -4). Promotions were made to the post of Principal vide Notification dated 16.4.2008 (Annexure A -6), however, petitioner was ignored. The persons junior to him were promoted to the post of Principal.

(2.) MR . Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that action of the respondents of not holding Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the case of the petitioner and similarly situate persons for the post of Principal was in contravention of the instructions issued on 23.6.1984. He further clarified that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal in the years 2006 and 2007 and the fact that the petitioner has been granted extension by two years could not come in his way for promotion. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that in view of office memorandum dated 4.10.1968, petitioners case could not be considered for promotion since he was on extension.

(3.) THE name of the petitioner was in the zone of consideration in the years of 2006 and 2007 respectively. Particulars of the petitioner and similarly situate Lecturers were called for as per Annexures, A -1, A -2 and A -3 respectively.