Past service cannot count toward promotion eligibility in a new department unless recruitment rules expressly permit it.

The petitioner served in the State Education Department from 2001 and was promoted to Superintendent Grade-II in 2022.

After applying through proper channel, he was selected through open recruitment for the same post at Sardar Patel University and joined there on 10 October 2022 following acceptance of his technical resignation.

When a Section Officer post became available in the University, he sought consideration for promotion, contending that his earlier service in the State Education Department satisfied the eligibility requirements under the University’s Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

The University rejected his claim; after a prior writ petition directed the University to decide his representations, a committee found no merit in them.

He then sought a direction for consideration and promotion to Section Officer.

Whether the petitioner’s service in the State Education Department, before his technical resignation, could be counted as qualifying service for promotion to Section Officer in the University

Whether Section 9 of the Sardar Patel University Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2021, or the University Executive Council’s decision extending its terms, entitled the petitioner to count that past service

The University’s Recruitment and Promotion Rules govern eligibility for promotion and did not provide for counting the petitioner’s prior service in another department.

Section 9 of the 2021 Act deems prior service to be University service for specified employees of Himachal Pradesh University institutions transferred to the new University, subject to the stated conditions; it does not generally cover employees newly recruited from other departments.

Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 24 November 2022 address the consequences and benefits of technical resignation, but do not automatically make prior service qualifying service for promotion in a new department; that question depends on the applicable Recruitment Rules.

The court also considered Rule 9(13) of the Fundamental Rules defining lien and distinguished Alisha Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh, where the posts concerned formed part of the same promotional avenue.

The petitioner entered the University through direct recruitment and was not an employee of an institution transferred to it under Section 9.

Nor had his service been transferred to the University under the Executive Council decision, which the court considered even on the assumption that it applied.

The University’s Rules contained no provision permitting his State Education Department service to count toward the prescribed qualifying service for promotion.

The protections associated with technical resignation did not, by themselves, supply that missing eligibility provision.

Unlike Alisha Chauhan, this case involved distinct departments and promotional cadres governed by separate rules.

The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.