Himachal HC quashes HIMUDA CEO appointment, says incumbent was ineligible
Shimla, Sep 4
In a major unpleasant move for the Congress led government of Himachal Pradesh, the High Court has set aside the appointment of a junior officer as Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary of HIMUDA, holding that a junior officer could not be elevated to a higher position by bypassing the prescribed service rules and denying a senior woman engineer fair consideration.
The court noted that the appointment was contrary to the applicable recruitment and promotion rules and that the incumbent was not eligible for the post.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, hearing CWP No. 13417 of 2024, Anjori Kapoor vs State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Housing and others, pronounced the judgment on September 3, 2026. The petitioner, had challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4 as CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA, besides questioning the manner in which the post of Chief Engineer was upgraded to facilitate his appointment.
The court came down heavily on the restructuring of the HIMUDA posts, holding that there was only one sanctioned regular post of Chief Engineer, which was occupied by Kapoor after her regular promotion on December 9, 2022. The post held by respondent No. 4, the court observed, was an upgraded post of Superintending Engineer created as a personal measure, and was not a regular sanctioned post of Chief Engineer.
The judgment specifically held that merely upgrading the post of Superintending Engineer held by respondent No. 4 could not create another regular post of Chief Engineer without amending the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
“The upgraded post of Chief Engineer held by respondent No. 4 was a measure personal to him.â€
The court further held that respondent No. 4 could not be treated as having been regularly promoted as Chief Engineer merely because the upgraded post carried the higher designation and pay scale. It noted that the cadre strength continued to provide for only a single regular Chief Engineer post, which was held by the petitioner.
Appointment to CEO post held illegal
The court was particularly categorical about respondent No. 4’s subsequent appointment as CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA.
In its findings, the High Court said:
“Respondent No. 4 was not eligible for appointment to the post of CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA.â€
It further held that since he had not been regularly promoted as Chief Engineer, he did not possess the requisite service qualification for consideration for the higher post.
The court ultimately recorded an even stronger conclusion:
“In the given facts of the case, respondent No. 4’s appointment to the post of Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA has to be held as illegal, he being ineligible for the post.â€
Also read HC verdict a relief for Landowners facing unjust payment withholding by HIMUDA
Court finds petitioner had right to challenge appointment
Rejecting the objection that Kapoor lacked locus standi, Justice Rewal Dua held that the petitioner was a directly aggrieved person because she was serving as a regular Chief Engineer and was senior to respondent No. 4.
The court observed that Kapoor had been denied fair consideration for appointment to the highest post in HIMUDA and stated that the right to fair consideration flows from the constitutional guarantee of equality.
The court also rejected the argument that Kapoor had acquiesced in the earlier arrangement merely because she had not immediately challenged the upgrading of respondent No. 4’s post. While observing that her challenge to the upgrading suffered from some delay, the court made it clear that this did not prevent her from challenging his subsequent appointment as CEO-cum-Secretary.
Appointment process ordered afresh
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed and set aside the notification dated May 27, 2025, under which respondent No. 4 had been appointed CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA. The court, however, protected the financial benefits already drawn by him from the post, directing that these would not be recovered from him.
The court directed respondents No. 1 to 3 to make the appointment to the post of CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA strictly in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority, Chief Executive Officer, Class-I (Gazetted), Appointment, Terms & Conditions of Service Rules, 2012, as amended, after considering the cases of eligible officers under those rules.
The exercise has been ordered to be completed within two weeks from the date of the order.
About the Author
