Allowed

Varinder Chauhan v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC12 May 2026CWPOA/261/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A TGT appointed in 1999 who acquired M.Com. in 2002 was overlooked for promotion to Lecturer (Commerce) at a DPC on 20.11.2002 while his juniors were promoted. The State relied on a later seniority list. The court held the exclusion arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16, directing promotion from the due date with consequential benefits and interest on arrears if delayed beyond three months

What the court decided

AI extract

Varinder Chauhan Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

CWPOA No.261 of 2019

¶4

Decided on: 12^th May, 2026

¶5

Varinder Chauhan .......Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

State of H.P. and others. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ 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.

¶8

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

¶12

¶13

juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears and seniority etc.

¶14

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 joined his duties on 03.12.1999. After joining the service, the petitioner improved his qualification and obtained degree of Masters of Commerce (in short M.Com.) in the 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

¶15

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

¶16

¶17

the persons junior to him were promoted. The petitioner under a legitimate belief waited for convening of the 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 not considering his candidature for promotion earlier to his juniors, is illegal, wrong, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as against the R&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.

¶18

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

¶19

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

¶20

¶21

Lecturer School Cadre (Commerce stream). The respondentsState have also not even disputed the date(s) of joining 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 respondents-State have also mentioned that the respondent-Department had drawn/prepared PGTs seniority list of in-service TGTs having Master’s Degree in different subjects, which was circulated on 30.11.2003 and the name of the petitioner in the same, figures at Seniority No.73 in PGTs seniority list in the subject of Commerce. Therefore, his name cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Commerce) School Cadre as 72 persons are senior to the petitioner and the persons promoted were fully eligible as per qualification as well as seniority assigned to them.

¶22

The respondents-State have also placed on record the instructions dated 16.06.2023, wherein the date of joining of respondent No.3 has been mentioned as 09.12.1999 and respondent No.4 as 16.02.2001. The date of joining of the petitioner has purposely not been mentioned, though his TGT seniority position has been mentioned as 9076.

¶23

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

¶24

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General. The record of the case has also been carefully perused.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as TGT on 02.12.1999 and joined his duties on 03.12.1999. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner acquired the qualification of Master’s in Commerce in the month of April, 2002 and was eligible for promotion to the post of PGT, when the DPC was convened on 20.11.2002. It is also not in dispute that the persons, who have been promoted, were junior to the petitioner and had joined after him. Once the petitioner was senior to the aforementioned persons, who have been promoted to the posts of PGT earlier to the petitioner, the action on the part of the respondentsState in not considering his candidature is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. It is settled law that a person who is senior and is fulfilling the requisite qualification to be considered for promotion, his claim has to be considered first, then the persons who are junior to him. Simply by mentioning his seniority position below the junior persons, cannot advance the plea raised by the respondentsState, that too, in the seniority position circulated on

¶27

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

¶28

¶29

30.11.2003. The candidature of the petitioner was to be considered when DPC was convened i.e. on 20.11.2002 and not as per the seniority position as existed on 30.11.2003. The plea taken by the respondents-State that the petitioner being placed, in the seniority list, below the junior persons, cannot be accepted, when he had been appointed earlier to them as TGT and further no reliance can be placed on the seniority position as existed on 30.11.2003, especially when the respondents-State have not disputed the factum that the petitioner had joined earlier to the persons mentioned above and further the petitioner had acquired the qualification for promotion to the post of PGT and he was eligible on 20.11.2002.

¶30

By now, it is well settled that ‘equals’ cannot be treated as ‘unequally’. In the present case, the petitioner being senior and eligible on all fours was to be considered earlier to the persons who had joined on the post of TGT after him and once the respondents-State have not disputed the date of appointment of the petitioner as 03.12.1999 and further he was possessing the requisite qualification when the DPC was convened on 20.11.2002, the action on the part of

¶31

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

¶32

¶33

the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though subsequently, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of PGT, but since he was eligibleon all fours and was senior to the persons who have been considered and promoted in the DPC convened on 20.11.2002, he is entitled to the promotion from the due date when the other persons have been promoted. Once the respondents-State have not disputed the factum of his being joined earlier to the private respondents on the post of TGT and further having the requisite qualification to be considered for promotion to the post of PGT, the action on the part of the respondents-State in not considering his candidature is totally illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶35

Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents-State are directed to promote the petitioner to the post of PGT from the date when respondents No.3 and 4 were promoted and he be assigned seniority above them, with all consequential benefits. In case the respondents-State do not give him the consequential benefits within three months from today, the petitioner shall be held entitled to

¶36

( 2026:HHC:16479 )

¶37

¶38

interest @6% per annum on the arrears from today, till the

¶39

actual payment to him.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.

¶41

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 12^th May, 2026 Judge (naveen)

Varinder Chauhan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Varinder Chauhan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Walia and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Mehar Chand Vs Hrtc and Ors.

Lekh Ram Vs State of Hp

Tulsi Ram and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Avneet Sirkeck Vs State of Hp

Chande Ram Vs the Hrtc and Others