State Must Ensure Fair Promotions And Equal Treatment Of Employees: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Justice Satyen Vaidya: “It is not expected from the executive of a welfare State to be partisan with one of its employees as against the other. Its role has to be of a model employer and a neutral umpire. Its legal obligation is to act in accordance with law”.

Background Facts:

In 2012, the petitioner, Dr. Swati Aggarwal, joined a three-year Senior Residency Course at Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College & Hospital, Tanda along with the respondent No.4, Dr. Aruna. The course was scheduled to be completed in November, 2015, but the petitioner completed it in June 2016 due to maternity and medical leave.

In January 2016, a post of assistant professor became vacant at RPGMC, Tanda. As per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 50% of the posts were to be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from the cadre of general duty officers, provided they held a post graduate degree and had three years of teaching experience.

Subsequently, the respondent No.4, Dr. Aruna was promoted for the post of assistant professor through Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings held in February,2016. The petitioner was not found eligible as she had not completed of her course.

Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court against the post being filled up through promotion instead of direct recruitment.

Contentions:

The petitioner contended that as per the recruitment & promotion rules the post should have been filled by direct recruitment and not through promotion. She stated that if the vacancy was filled by direct recruitment in January, 2016, the next vacancy would be filled through promotion and by then she also would have become eligible.

She further stated that she had written to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, and received a response clarifying that Respondent No.4, Dr. Aruna had been appointed against a higher vacant faculty post, not a regular general duty officer vacancy. The letter further stated that the next vacancy will be available in the year 2017, and the petitioner's candidature would be considered at that time.

Later, the petitioner filed another representation before the State Government. Based on which, the state decided to review the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings held in February,2016.

In response, to the decision to hold a review Dr.Aruna, the Respondent No. 4 filed an original application before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal, challenging the state's decision to conduct review. Thereafter, the H.P. Administrative Tribunal through an interim order had put a stay on the review proceedings to be held.

After the Tribunal was abolished, the case was transferred to the Himachal Pradesh High Court as CWPOA No. 348 of 2020. On 08.01.2020, a Division Bench of the High Court vacated the interim order passed by the H.P. Administrative Tribunal, and allowed the review of Departmental Promotion Committee to continue.

However, on 24.01.2020, the State Government reversed its own decision and decided not to conduct the review. As a result, CWPOA No. 348 of 2020 was disposed of by the High Court, stating that as the departmental proceedings were no longer being conducted the writ petition had become infructuous.

Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner filed the writ petition, seeking directions to hold a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee meeting, and to consider eligible candidates, including herself, for the post of assistant professor.

Findings:

The High Court observed that the posts of assistant professor were to be filled by two modes i.e. direct recruitment and promotion. The quota for each mode is 50%, which means that the sanctioned strength of assistant professor has to be filled by maintaining the quota of 50% in each category.

The Court noted that as per the records the first post of assistant professor was filled in 2011 by a promotee candidate. The next post was filled in 2012 by direct recruitment and then again, the third post was filled in 2013 by a promotee candidate. Obviously, the next vacancy that had occurred in February, 2016, had to be filled by direct candidate. Otherwise, the percentage of promotee candidates would remain higher than the direct candidates. Therefore, it was clearly established that the vacancy was to be filled by direct recruitment.

The Court observed that the authorities claimed that one of the candidates who was appointed as associate professor, through promotion had left the post, and stated that the resulting vacancy had to be filled by another promotee. The Court held this argument as unsustainable and contrary to the proper application of the recruitment rules.

In Dr. Nikita Verma Vs. State of H.P. and Ors, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, held that “The quota and roster system must be applied to vacancies based on the prescribed recruitment ratio, not on who last held the post, balance shall be maintained between the promotes and direct recruits in achieving their respective quota of reservation to the extent of 50% each.”

Thus, the Court concluded that, it is not expected from the executive of a welfare State to be partisan with one of its employees as against the other. Its role has to be of a model employer and a neutral umpire. Its legal obligation is to act in accordance with law.

Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to hold a review of the Departmental Procedure Committee for the post of Assistant Professor in RPGMC, Tanda.

Case Name: Dr. Swati Aggarwal v/s State of H.P. & Ors

Case No.: CWP No.5452 of 2020

Date of Decision: 05.06.2025

For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.

Click Here To Read/Download Order