RANJIT SINGH THAKUR vs HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF HP

2026:HHC:49215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
High Court of H.P.
SHIMLA

C.W.P No.11397 of 2025
Date of Decision: 03.11.2026
____________________________________________________________
Ranjit Singh Thakur ...Petitioner

Versus

Hon’ble High Court of H.P & others ....Respondents
Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge

Whether approved for reporting? Yes
________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr.Vishal Sharma, Advocate
(through V.C) and Mr. Karan
Sharma, Advocate, for the
petitioner.

For the respondents: Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate, for
respondent No.1

Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh
Thakur, Advocate, for respondents
No.2 to 5.
_____________________________________________________________
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has,
inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i)For quashing the order dated 18.10.2024
by District & Sessions Judge Solan
(Annexure P-1) and also quashing the order
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 16:41:17 :::CIS

2. 2026:HHC:49215

dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed as
High Court of H.P.
non-speaking non reasoned order
considering the representation dated
15.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) in the interest of
justice and to stop back door entry
mechanism done to give benefit to certain
class of people against the settle Himachal
Pradesh District Judiciary Staff
Recruitment, Promotion, control, conduct,
discipline and other condition of service
Rules, 2022 amendment done on
16.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) in the interest of
justice by using inherent powers of this
Hon’ble Court which are there to prevent
sheer abuse of process of law and secure
ends of justice to all without any
discrimination conferred to them under 226.
(ii) And till the pendency of the present writ
as a interim relief the implementation of
office order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-
1) to the extent of promotion on the post of
chief administrative officer should be kept
vacant by imposing stay on the said office
order in the interest of justice fairness and
equity otherwise there will be irreparable
loss to the petitioner.”

2. According to the petitioner, there is a post of Chief
Administrative Officer. As per him, in terms of Annexure P-4,
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 16:41:17 :::CIS

3. 2026:HHC:49215

appended with the petition i.e. Notification dated 16.10.2024,
High Court of H.P.
the Himachal Pradesh District Judiciary Staff (Recruitment,
Promotion, Control, Conduct, Discipline and other conditions
of service), Rules 2022 (herein after referred to as the “2022
Rules”) stood amended inter alia to the effect that the post of
Senior Shrestedhar in the Court of District Judge Forest,
CBI Courts, Family Courts and Additional District Judges
Court, wherever post is sanctioned, is to be filled by
placement from amongst the senior most Senior Sheristedars
working in the Division and the post of Senior Sheristedar in
the Court of Senior Civil Judge is to be filled by promotion
from amongst the Sheristedars of the Courts of Civil Judges
and Reader Grade-II working in Division, having minimum
educational qualification of 10+2 and qualifying service of 2
years in the feeder category, in terms of option. Further,
according to the petitioner, in terms of the said amendment,
the post of Chief Administrative Officer was to be filled by way
of promotion, by selection from amongst first six eligible
officers in the cadre of Senior Shirastedars and Reader Grade-
I working in the concerned Civil and Sessions Division.
3. According to the petitioner in terms of Annexure
P-1, i.e office order dated 18.12.2024, the private respondent-
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 16:41:17 :::CIS

4. 2026:HHC:49215

Devi Singh was placed as Senior Sheristedar, which office
High Court of H.P.
order was liable to be quashed and set aside, on the ground
that as on the date when said office order was issued, said
respondent was ineligible to be considered for promotion
against the post of Senior Sheristedar, as he was not
possessing the minimum educational qualification of 10+2.
On this premise, other reliefs have also been prayed for by
the petitioner, including the relief that the post of Chief
Administrative Officer be kept vacant during the pendency of
the present petition.
4. This writ petition was filed on 15.07.2025 and
before filing of the same, the private respondent infact stood
promoted against the post of Chief Administrative Officer vide
Notification dated 08.05.2025, Annexure R-2/5, appended
with the reply filed by the private respondents. In other words,
before the petitioner had filed the present writ petition,
Notification dated 08.05.2025 stood issued, which has not
been assailed by the petitioner incidentally till date.
5. Learned counsel of the petitioner submitted that
as Shri Devi Singh was not possessing the qualification of
10+2, which was the minimum educational qualification as
per Annexure P-4 for promotion to the post of Senior
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 16:41:17 :::CIS

5. 2026:HHC:49215

Sheristedar from amongst Sheristedars, therefore, his
High Court of H.P.
promotion to the post of Chief Administrative Officer (which
though is not under challenge) was bad in law, because as
per him, same was contrary to Annexure P-4, in terms
whereof, the post of Chief Administrative Officer was to be
filled by way of promotion by selection from amongst first six
eligible officials in the cadre of Senior Sheristedars and
Reader Grade-II working in the concerned Civil and Sessions
Division. As per the learned counsel as respondent Devi Singh
was not eligible for promotion to the post of Senior
Sheristedar, this rendered his promotion to the post of
Senior Sheristedar and also to the post of Chief Administrative
Officer bad in law. This was the only argument, addressed
before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 and learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the private respondents drew the attention of the Court to the
documents appended with the petition and have apprised the
Court that respondent Devi Singh was promoted against the
post of Senior Sheristedar vide office order dated 03.11.2017
Annexure R-2/1 and not vide office order dated 18.12.2024.
They further apprised the Court that as on the date when the
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 16:41:17 :::CIS

6. 2026:HHC:49215

said promotion order was issued, the relevant Recruitment
High Court of H.P.
and Promotion Rules, which were in vogue, relating to the
post of Senior Sheristedar, which stand appended with the
reply filed by the private respondents as Annexure RA,
provided that the eligibility criteria for promotion against the
post of Senior Sheristedar was minimum qualification of
Matric and qualifying service of two years in the feeder cadre.
They submitted that as respondent Devi-Singh was fulfilling
the eligibility criteria for promotion, as it was existing as on
the date, when he was promoted against the post of Senior
Sheristedar, the present writ petition is completely
misconceived.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents
further argued that as respondent-Devi Singh stood
promoted against the post of Chief Administrative Officer
even before the filing of the writ petition and as till date, there
is no challenge to the said appointment, this petition is liable
to be dismissed on this ground.
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that dehors the fact whether Devi Singh stood
promoted against the post of Senior Sheristedar vide office
order dated 03.11.2017 and what was the requirement of
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 16:41:17 :::CIS

7. 2026:HHC:49215

Recruitment and Promotion Rules at the relevant time,
High Court of H.P.
because subsequently, this Rule was amended in terms of
Annexure P-4 and as Devi Singh was not fulfilling the
eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Senior
Sheristedar as per Annexure P-4, his promotion to the post of
Senior Sheristedar was liable to be set aside and so also his
promotion to the post of Chief Administrative Officer and he
was liable to be demoted to the post of Sheristedar.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents
appended with the petition.
10. It is a matter of record that respondent Devi Singh
was promoted against the post of Senior Sheristedar vide
office order dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure R-2/A). A perusal of
this office order demonstrates that he was promoted as such
by the order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge,
Solan, H.P. It is not in dispute that when respondent-Devi
Singh was promoted as Senior Shirastedar on 03.11.2017, he
was fulfilling the eligibility criteria, as was existing on the said
date for promotion to the post of Senior Shirastedar.
11. In light of the fact that as the private respondent
stood promoted to the post of Senior Sheristedar as on
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 16:41:17 :::CIS

8. 2026:HHC:49215

03.11.2017 and said promotion order is not under challenge,
High Court of H.P.
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the said promotion of the private respondent has to be set
aside on account of the Notification issued on 16.10.2024,
deserves to be negated. This is for the reason that service
jurisprudence does not provide that if a person already stands
promoted to a particular post as per the prevailing Rules and
subsequently, the R & P Rules qua the said post are amended
and certain qualifications are added, which are not possessed
by a person, who is already holding the promotional post,
then post amendment in the R & P Rules, the promotion of
that person to the post in issue as per the Rules existing at
the time when the promotion was made, becomes bad in law
and such an incumbent then has to be demoted. Therefore, in
light of the said observations, the contention of the petitioner
that because on 16.10.2024, the minimum educational
qualification for promotion to the post of Senior Sheristedar
from amongst the Sheristedars working in the Courts of Civil
Judges and the Reader Grade-II stood amended, the private
respondent should be demoted from the post of Senior
Sheristedar as his promotion becomes bad in law, is rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 16:41:17 :::CIS

9. 2026:HHC:49215

12. Further, a perusal of the Annexure P-1
High Court of H.P.
demonstrates that vide office order dated 16.12.2024,
respondent Devi Singh, Superintendent Grade-II in the office
of District and Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P, who stood
designated as Senior Sheristedar, was placed as such in the
same office. Meaning thereby, that as on the date when this
office order was issued, the private respondent was serving in
the office of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Solan and
therefore also, the minimum educational qualification, which
otherwise was relevant for promotion to the post of Senior
Sheristedar, has no relevance as far as the facts of this case
are concerned. This is for the reason that this minimum
qualification has to be read only vis-a-vis the promotion of a
Sheristedar in the Courts of Civil Judges and Reader Grade-II
to the post of Senior Sheristedar in the Court of Civil Judges.
Besides this, Annexure P-4, which was a Notification issued
on 16.10.2024, obviously has to be applied prospectively,
meaning thereby that after said amendment was incorporated
in the 2022 Rules, thereafter, a Senior Sheristedar was to be
appointed by way of promotion in terms of this particular
Rule. In light of the fact that Devi Singh was already serving
as a Senior Sheristedar when this amendment was brought
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 16:41:17 :::CIS

10. 2026:HHC:49215

into force, he was eligible for promotion by selection to the
High Court of H.P.
post of Chief Administrative Officer, because his eligibility for
promotion to the said post was not to be judged from the
perspective of the amendment which was carried out vide
Annexure P-4 qua promotions to the post of Senior
Sheristedar.
13. Therefore, in light of the above discussions, we
have no hesitation in holding that the present writ petition is
completely misconceived. In light of the fact that the private
respondent stood promoted to the post of Senior Sheristedar
as far back as in the year 2017 and as at the relevant time,
he was fulfilling the eligibility criteria provided in the R & P
Rules, which governed promotion to the post of Senior
Sheristedar at that time, the prayer of the petitioner of
quashing Annexure P-1 is hereby rejected and so are the
subsequent prayers of the petitioner. Petition is accordingly
dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge


(Yogesh Jaswal)
Judge
November 03, 2026
(meera)
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 16:41:17 :::CIS