Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

Must Read

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2)...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v....

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V....

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S....

Follow us

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the Respondents’ act of purportedly not promoting him to the post of Junior Basic Teacher (J.B.T.) against Scheduled Tribe Quota

Brief facts of the Case

In the case, the petitioner, Ramesh Chand approached the court for the arbitration of the current appeal based on the claims that the respondents have purposefully not promoted him to the post of T.G.T. (Arts) from the post of TET pass J.B.T. against Scheduled Tribe Quota when advancements of other qualified Junior Basic Teachers were done in the year 2013 despite the availability of opportunities. Further, he supported his claims by providing evidence of the availability of vacancy gathered by seeking information from the office of Deputy Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh through the Right to Information Act. 

Ramesh stated that not all the vacant posts were filled up and candidates who were promoted have passed the eligibility test one year after the petitioner still they were given preference and promoted while the petitioner was not. 

Based on the aforementioned events, Ramesh, through this petition, demanded some reliefs. 

First, that the petitioner should be included by the respondent Department for advancement to the said post reserved for him (scheduled tribe) Under the ST quota.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent state has claimed the promotion that promotion is conducted as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Abiding by those rules, when senior candidates senior to the petitioner were eligible for promotion for the said post who also might have passed Test after the petitioner could not have been rejected. Moreover, the leftover vacancies were also subsequently filed as well.

Also, most importantly, Ramesh was also promoted in terms of his seniority.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondents have worked as per their whims and fancies and arbitrarily did not consider the petitioner for promotion before those who had passed the Eligibility Test year after the petitioner.

It further claimed that the petitioner has the right to be prompted.

Observations made by the Court

The court held that the petitioner did not have the right to be considered and prompted over and above those candidates just because he passed the test earlier. According to the rules, the eligibility for the post is seen as on the date when the Departmental Promotion Committee meets. On the date the committee met, all the incumbents fulfilled the required qualification. Also, the candidates promoted were senior to him even though they cleared the test one year later.

Court’s Decision

The court held that the petitioner cannot have a superior claim over his seniors and have fulfilled the eligibility requirements as on the date of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee until stated otherwise by the committee. 

Case: Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others

Coram: Mr Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Click here for the full judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v. The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai. was...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V. Asha heard the case of...

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S. Prema v. The Superintendent of...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order and states “Liberty of a Citizen cannot be taken away in the Absence of Lawyer”

In the case of Parveen v. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “a citizen’s liberty cannot be taken away”. This observation...

Revised Gratuity Ceiling Notified by Central Government Applicable To All Establishments Irrespective of Whether Controlled by the State or Centre: Tripura High Court

In the case of Sri Tapas Guha vs Tripura Tea Development Corporation Ltd. and others, a single-judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Akil Kureshi...

Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Case Appeal by OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd.

The OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was filed against an order passed...

Jharkhand High Court Disposes of Criminal Revision Petition Against the Judgment Passed by the Learned Sessions Judge With Modification

A criminal revision petition against the Judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.49/2014 was...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -