Shimla, March 10,
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, presided over by Justice Sandeep Sharma, has directed the State of Himachal Pradesh and other respondents to consider the promotion of Murari Lal, a Sanskrit Lecturer officiating as Principal, to the post of Principal on a regular basis. The Court also ordered the release of the salary attached to the post of Principal for the period Lal has been officiating in the role.
Support Independent Journalism Complete Your Membership
Choose Your Membership
Background of the Case
Murari Lal, the petitioner, has been officiating as Principal at a college run by the Temple Trust Shri Naina Devi Ji since June 1, 2023, following the retirement of the previous Principal. Despite his seniority and eligibility, Lal was denied promotion on the grounds that the vacancy had to be filled under the rules in force at the time of its creation, which stipulated a retirement age of 58 years. Lal, however, argued that as a Sanskrit teacher, his retirement age should be 60 years, as per the amended rules of 2024.
Key Legal Question
The central issue before the Court was whether a vacancy should be filled based on the rules in force at the time of its creation or under the rules existing at the time of consideration. The petitioner contended that the amended rules, which raised the retirement age for Sanskrit teachers to 60 years, should apply, making him eligible for promotion.
Court’s findings
The Court examined the amended bye-laws and rules of 2024, which explicitly state that Sanskrit teachers are to retire at the age of 60 years or at the end of the academic session, whichever is later. The Court found no merit in the respondents’ argument that the petitioner was on extension, as no documentary evidence was provided to support this claim. Instead, the Court noted that Lal had been officiating as Principal for over two years, indicating his eligibility and seniority for the post.
” Respondents have nowhere shown or specifically stated that the petitioner has been superannuated, rather have claimed him to be on extension, but document in regard to either of the situations is missing and as such, this Court can safely presume that the petitioner is still continuing in job, noted Justice Sharma in the order. Adding,” Once, the petitioner is in service
and now as per amended Bye-laws, (supra), a teacher will superannuate either at the age of 60 years or at the end of academic session, respondent are estopped from taking the aforesaid stand i.e. petitioner being on extension. A passing reference can be made to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Principal/Pracharya, which provide no age limit for appointment/promotion to said post, as such, as on date petitioner being in service; post of Principal being available; petitioner already manning said post on officiating basis and; petitioner holding the requisite qualification for the post, being senior most in the cadre, are the factors, which favour the case of the petitioner,” noted the court.
The Court also rejected the respondents’ reliance on the old rules, emphasizing that the amended rules of 2024 now govern the service conditions of the petitioner. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2023), the Court reiterated that promotions must be considered under the rules in force at the time of consideration, not at the time of the vacancy’s creation.
Salary Entitlement
The Court further ruled that Lal is entitled to the salary of the Principal’s post for the period he has been officiating. The respondents’ argument that Lal had agreed to work without additional remuneration was dismissed as untenable. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh vs. Hari Om Sharma (1998), which held that such undertakings are unenforceable and contrary to public policy.
In its final order, the Court directed the respondents to consider Lal’s promotion to the post of Principal with effect from June 1, 2023, and to release the salary attached to the post for the period he has been officiating. The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s rightful claim should not be defeated on flimsy grounds and urged the respondents to expedite the process within four weeks.
