ANJUM ABBAS vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

2026:HHC:25588
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWP No.2616 of 2026
Reserved on: 16.06.2026
Decided on: 30.06.2026
Uploaded on: 30.06.2026
Anjum Abbas … Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rrajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate
General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia ,
prayed for the following reliefs:-
“ i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may
kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be
directed to immediately convene a DPC for the post of
Controller, HPF & AS against two vacant posts available
in the department on account of the persons being on
long term secondment/deputation with further directions
to consider the petitioner for the post of Controller, HPF &
AS and if found fit and suitable to promote her in any
case, before 31.3.2026 which is the date of
superannuation of the petitioner in the interest of law and
justice.
(ii) That further an appropriate writ, order or directions
may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be
directed to promote the petitioner for the post of Controller,
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?


::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:53 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:25588
HPF & AS and the petitioner may be made eligible and
High Court of H.P.
entitled to all the consequential benefits including pay
scale etc.etc. ”
2. The case of the petitioner is that in the respondent-
Department, there are posts of Controller. The post of Controller in
terms of Notification dated 19.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) is filled in
100% by promotion from amongst Joint Controllers having 3 years
regular or regular combined with continuous adhoc service. As per
the petitioner, she became eligible for promotion against the post of
Controller in the year 2025, having completed the requisite number
of years of service as a Joint Controller. It is further her case that a
Departmental Promotion Committee was conducted on 30.03.2025,
for promotion against the posts of Controller and 7 Joint Controllers
were considered for promotion including the petitioner. It is further
her case that respondents promoted 5 persons by way of promotion
to the posts of Controller including 2 against the posts which were
available on account of the incumbents serving against said 2 posts
being on long deputation. According to the petitioner, one of the
incumbents is on deputation with BBMB since the year 2006 and
the other is on deputation with Central University of Himachal
Pradesh since 2022. To substantiate this fact, the petitioner has
appended with the petition the Minutes of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as Annexure P-2. It is further her case that
out of the existing Cadre of the post of Controllers, one incumbent
superannuated in the month of November, 2025 and another
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:53 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:25588
incumbent retired on 31.01.2026. Thereafter, a proposal for
High Court of H.P.
convening the Departmental Promotion Committee against these 2
vacancies was initiated in the departmental file in the first week of
February, 2026. Her grievance is that despite the fact that she was
eligible for promotion against the post of Controller against the 2
vacancies that had become available, the Department took a u-turn
and took a stand that it did not intend to fill-up the vacant posts so
created on the ground that the posts which were being occupied by
the incumbents who were on deputation, could not be construed as
vacant posts by the Department. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
approached this Court by way of this petition.
3. When this case was listed on 06.03.2026, the following
order was passed:-
“ CWP No.2616 of 2026
Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate
General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. As
prayed for, reply be filed by the next date of hearing.
17.03.2026
List on .
CMP No.3633 of 2026
Notice in above terms. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant/ petitioner has argued that the petitioner is
serving as a Joint Controller. She is eligible for promotion
to the post of Controller. There are in all thirteen posts of
Controller in the respondent-Department and there are
two vacancies lying vacant. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that these two vacancies are there on account of
long deputation of the holders of the said posts. He
further submits that one person is on deputation since the
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:53 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:25588
year 2006 and the other is on deputation since the year
High Court of H.P.
2022. Learned Senior Counsel referred to Para-16.23 of
the Handbook on Personal Matters and submitted that in
a situation where the incumbent has gone on deputation
on a long term basis, the post in issue has to be treated
as a vacancy and it has to be filled according to the
provisions of the Recruitment Rules. He contended that
previously this was done by the Authorities with regard to
the said posts, holders of which were on long term
deputation, but now a U-Turn has been taken by the
Department and despite the fact that a Departmental
Promotion Committee was proposed to be convened in the
month of February, 2026, nothing is being done,
depriving the petitioner from her chance of promotion who
otherwise is to superannuate on 31.03.2026. Learned
Senior Counsel in this regard also referred to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court
on the issue, i.e. CWP No.8098 of 2023, titled Vibhore
Kumar Sharma Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and
others, decided on 14.05.2024 and submitted that this
judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench and
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also not
interfered with the same.
Learned Deputy Advocate General to have instructions,
as to why the petitioner is not being considered for
promotion against the vacancy which is there on account
of the long term deputation despite the fact that as per
the learned Senior Counsel, she falls in the Zone of
Consideration as she is at Serial No.2 in the Seniority of
Joint Controllers. As prayed for, list on 17.03.2026 .”
Thereafter, on 17.03.2026, the following order was passed:-
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:53 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:25588
“ Learned Additional Advocate General has handed over
High Court of H.P.
instructions dated 16.03.2026. Having perused the
same, this Court is not satisfied with them. In light of the
fact that the petitioner has to superannuate on
31.03.2026, the act of the Department of not considering
her case in terms of the previous precedents is both
arbitrary and discriminatory. Accordingly, the
respondents are directed to take a positive view in the
matter and report back to the Court on 19.03.2026. ”
As the petitioner was to superannuate on 31.03.2026, on
25.03.2026, the following order was passed:-
“ Reply stands filed. Rejoinder thereto be filed, within a
period of three weeks. List on 17.04.2026.
It is observed that because the petitioner has already
aporoached the Court before her retirement, the factum of
the petitioner superannuating during the pendency of the
petition, shall not come in the way of the relief being
prayed for by her, in case, she is held entitled for it by the
Court .”
4. During the course of hearing of the petition, this Court
had requisitioned the minutes of the meeting of the earlier
Departmental Promotion Committees convened for promoting Joint
Controllers against the post of Controller, which were made available
for the perusal of the Court and perusal thereof demonstrated that
on more than one occasion, incumbents senior to the petitioner
stood promoted against the post of Controller against the seats of the
incumbents who were on long deputation.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:53 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:25588
the present case is a case of sheer discrimination. He submitted that
High Court of H.P.
the Department was consistently conferring promotion to
incumbents, i.e. Joint Controllers against the posts held by
incumbents who were on long deputation and departure from the
said practice has been made by the Department for the first time in
the case of the petitioner and that too when she was on the verge of
superannuation. He submitted that the Department should have
followed the same practice at least upto the petitioner as she was
legitimately expecting her promotion against the said post in light of
similar treatment given to her seniors. Learned Senior Counsel,
thus, submitted that the act of the respondent-Department of
denying promotion to the petitioner against the post of Controller on
the ground that no promotions can be made to the posts held by
persons on long deputation is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General
submitted that it was a matter of record that 2 Controllers are there
on long deputation since the years 2006 and 2022, however,
Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh in terms
of Annexure R-2/2 issued a clarification on 11.03.2026, reiterating
its instructions dated 28.06.2001, categorically stating that posts
falling vacant on account of deputation or secondment shall not be
filled up by any mode of recruitment. He submitted that in light of
this fact, the Department decided not to hold any Departmental
Promotion Committees and therefore, the act of the Department of
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:53 :::CIS

7
2026:HHC:25588
not holding the Departmental Promotion Committee cannot be
High Court of H.P.
assailed. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the
lien of the incumbents who were there on deputation was still with
the Parent Department and therefore, the said post could not be
treated as vacant. He thus submitted that as there was no illegality
in the stand of the Department, the petition being devoid of any
merit be dismissed.
7. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
as also learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the
pleadings as also documents appended therewith and record also,
this Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, the act of the Department of denying
promotion to the petitioner against the post of Controller is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. It is not in dispute that in the previous Departmental
Promotion Committees, the posts held by incumbents who were on
long deputation were treated as vacancies and promotions were
conferred against said posts.
9. This Court is of the considered view that as this practice
was being followed by the Department, the petitioner could not have
been discriminated against when her turn came, more so in light of
the fact that when the vacancy in issue became available the
petitioner was almost on the verge of superannuation.
10. This Court does not have any quarrel with the legal
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:53 :::CIS

8
2026:HHC:25588
issue that the posts being held by incumbents who are on
High Court of H.P.
deputation cannot be treated as vacant posts, but then the
Department itself in the present case was treating the posts as
vacant and that too, since the year 2006.
11. Therefore, in these peculiar circumstances, interest of
justice would have been served, had the Department held the
Departmental Promotion Committee and considered the petitioner
for promotion against two vacancies which were available, but with
the condition that henceforth, the vacancies shall not be treated as
vacant. This was required more so, in light of the fact that in the
previous Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner indeed
was in the zone of consideration, which fact has not been denied by
the Department.
12. Therefore, in light of the above observations, this
petition is allowed to the extent that the act of the Department of not
holding Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the
petitioner for promotion against the post of Controller, when 2
vacancies became available in the month of November, 2025 and
31.01.2026,more so in light of the fact that proposal for convening
Departmental Promotion Committee was initiated, is held to be bad.
Further, as a matter personal to the petitioner, the respondent-
Department is directed to hold Departmental Promotion Committee
as on 31.01.2026 and consider the case of the petitioner for
promotion against the post of Controller and in case she is found
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:53 :::CIS

9
2026:HHC:25588
eligible for promotion and is recommended by Departmental
High Court of H.P.
Promotion Committee, then consequences shall ensue. It is further
ordered that these directions have been passed by this Court in the
peculiar facts of this case and the same shall not be treated as
precedent. This Court otherwise holds that the posts held by the
incumbents who are on deputation, cannot be treated as vacancies
for the purposes of promotion and at the best only officiating
promotions can be effected against the said posts.
13. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of
accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
June 30, 2026
(Rishi)
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 18:01:53 :::CIS