Dismissed¶49

Thakur Singh v. State of Hp and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Apr 2026CWPOA/1070/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Armourer Course Grade-II; Armourer Course Grade-I; Head Constable (Armourer); Assistant Sub Inspector (Armourer); Sub Inspector (Armourer); promotion hierarchy; Standing Order dated 21.05.2004; CPMF/EME; relaxation of Rules; non-existent posts; Annexure P/2; executive inaction; consequential benefits; pay and seniority; Thakur Singh; State of Himachal Pradesh; CWPOA No.1070 of 2019; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Jiya Lal Bhardwaj; dismissal without costs.

What did the court decide?

The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel that, since there was no post in existence of Assistant Sub Inspector, the petitioners could not have been promoted to the said post, cannot be countenanced, especially when the petitioners were not eligible even if their contention is accepted to be true for the post of Sub Inspector. ¶42

Thakur Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether, since no post of Assistant Sub Inspector is sanctioned (as evident from Annexure P/2), the petitioners - each having 5 years' service as Head Constable - ought to have been promoted directly to the post of Sub Inspector. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Although the petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector by the respondents while relaxing the Rules, though they had not qualified the examination of Armourer Course Grade-II, they cannot claim promotion to the post of Sub Inspector since they had not passed the Armourer Course Grade-I.

¶42

Key takeaways

The plea raised by the petitioners that they ought to have been promoted as Sub Inspector is without any logic and substance, they having not passed even the Armourer Course Grade-II.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWPOA No.1070 of 2019 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 06th April, 2026; Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge) - Two Head Constables (Armourer), each with 5 years' service and promoted to Assistant Sub Inspector by relaxation of the requirement of passing Armourer Course Grade-II, sought direct promotion to Sub Inspector on the ground that no post of Assistant Sub Inspector was sanctioned (Annexure P/2), framing the grievance as executive inaction. The Court noted the Standing Order dated 21.05.2004, under which a Head Constable (Armourer) with a minimum of 5 years' service who has passed Armourer course Grade-II (prescribed for CPMF/EME) alone is eligible for promotion to Assistant Sub Inspector (Armourer), and promotion to Sub Inspector (Armourer) requires passing Grade-I Course; a Head Constable is not promoted directly to Sub Inspector. Since neither petitioner had passed even Grade-II, much less Grade-I, their contention based on the non-existence of the A.S.I. post could not be countenanced and their plea was held to be without logic and substance. Petition dismissed; no orders as to cost; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

2026:HHC:10246

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.1070 of 2019 Decided on: 06th April, 2026

¶3

__________________________________________________________________ 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.

¶4

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶5

By way of the present petition, the petitioners have

¶6

prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

¶7

“a) That impugned act of the respondents above 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

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

consequential benefits.

¶11

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 non-existent posts with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority etc. etc.;”

¶12

The precise grouse of the petitioners in the present

¶13

petition is that since there is no post of Assistant Sub Inspector, as evident from perusal of Annexure P/2, the respondents

¶14

ought to have promoted the petitioners to the post of Sub Inspector, since both of them were having 5 years’ service as Head Constable.

¶15

The respondents filed reply to the petition and admitted that no post of A.S.I. has been sanctioned. However,

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

A.S.I. (Armourer). As per the Standing Order issued on

¶19

21.05.2004, the following provision has been prescribed, which

¶20

reads as under:-

¶21

“Head Constables (Armourer) with a minimum of 5 years of service who have passed Armourer course Grade-II as prescribed for CPMF/EME will be considered eligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (Armourer).”

¶22

As per the aforesaid provision, Head Constable

¶23

(Armourer) with a minimum of 5 years’ service, who have

¶24

passed Armourer Course Grade-II prescribed for CPMF/EME, will be considered eligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant

¶25

Sub Inspector (Armourer).

¶26

In the case of the petitioners, both of them have not

¶27

passed Armourer Course Grade-II, which is mandatory as per

¶28

Standing Order for promotion to the Rank of A.S.I. (Armourer).

¶29

Further as per the Standing Order of promotion to the rank of

¶30

Sub Inspector (Armourer), Grade-I Course has to be passed, but

¶31

both the petitioners have not passed even Grade-II Course and

¶32

were promoted to the rank of A.S.I., by relaxing the provisions

¶33

¶34

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.

¶35

I have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State and also gone through the record carefully.

¶36

No doubt, there is no post of Assistant Sub Inspector as per Annexure P/2, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents while filing reply to the petition. However, it is also admitted that before making promotion to

¶37

the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, Head Constable (Armourer)

¶38

with a minimum of 5 years’ of service, who has passed Armourer Course Grade-II, is only eligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (Armourer). Further for the promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, Armourer Course

¶39

¶40

Grade-I has to be passed and only then a Head Constable can

¶41

be considered and promoted to the post of Sub Inspector.

¶42

No doubt, in the present case, the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector by the respondents while relaxing the Rules, though they had not qualified the said examination of Armourer Course Grade-II, but they cannot claim promotion to the post of Sub Inspector since they had not passed the Armourer Course Grade-I. The petitioners have not disputed that for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, one has to pass Armourer Course Grade-I and thus, the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel that since there was no post in existence of Assistant Sub Inspector, they could not have been promoted to the said post, cannot be countenanced, especially when the petitioners were not eligible even if their contention is accepted to be true for the post of Sub Inspector.

¶43