MURARI LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Precisely, the question which needs to be determined in the instant petition is that 'whether a vacancy is to be filled up on the basis of rules in vogue on the date of creation thereof or whether same can only be filled under the rules existing at the time of consideration?'.

(2.) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though petitioner is officiating as Principal in respondent No.4-College since 2023, but yet he is being denied promotion against the post of Principal on regular basis on the ground that vacancy of Principal, which had actually fallen vacant on 31/5/2023 can only be filled up under the rules existing on the date of creation of vacancy, wherein retirement age was 58 years.

(3.) While making this Court peruse bye-laws and rules governing miscellaneous matters connected therewith (Annexure P-22), promulgated by respondent-Trust, Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Advocate, states that though there is a fallacy in the stand taken by the respondents with regard to application of old rules, so far filling-up of post of Principal is concerned, but even if same are to be made applicable, petitioner herein could not have been denied promotion for the reason that he being a Sanskrit Teacher, otherwise is required to superannuate at the age of 60 years. He states that since petitioner has yet to attain the age of 60 years, his claim for promotion to the post of Principal, which is lying vacant for considerable time, deserves to be considered.