Personal upgradation cannot create a regular cadre post or confer eligibility for higher appointment.

The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were serving in HIMUDA. The petitioner was senior: she was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 18.10.1996, Executive Engineer on 16.06.2007 and Superintending Engineer on 01.09.2014, whereas respondent No. 4 entered those grades on 11.12.1996, 16.06.2007 and 20.03.2017 respectively.

Under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, the cadre of Chief Engineer comprised one post, to be filled by promotion from eligible Superintending Engineers.

The petitioner was regularly promoted as Chief Engineer on 09.12.2022 against that sanctioned post.

On 01.02.2023, the post of Superintending Engineer held by respondent No. 4 was upgraded to Chief Engineer as a personal measure, with a stipulation that it would revert to Superintending Engineer when vacated by him. Respondent No. 4 was thereafter promoted against the upgraded post on 02.02.2023.

On 27.05.2025, the petitioner was appointed Advisor (Policy & Strategy), while respondent No. 4 was appointed CEO-cum-Secretary.

Whether the petitioner had locus standi and was a person aggrieved by respondent No. 4’s appointment as CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA?

Whether the upgradation of the Superintending Engineer post held by respondent No. 4 to Chief Engineer, as a personal measure, amounted to creation of an additional regular Chief Engineer post under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules?

Whether respondent No. 4, who held the Chief Engineer designation only pursuant to the personal upgradation of his substantive Superintending Engineer post, was eligible for appointment as CEO-cum-Secretary under the 2012 Rules, as amended in 2019?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration for appointment to the post of CEO-cum-Secretary, HIMUDA, notwithstanding her appointment as Advisor (Policy & Strategy)?

The Court applied the HIMUDA Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Chief Engineer, which prescribed a single cadre post to be filled by promotion from eligible Superintending Engineers.

The Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority, Chief Executive Officer, Class-I (Gazetted), Appointment, Terms & Conditions of Service Rules, 2012, as amended on 08.08.2019, under which the single CEO post could be filled by placement, transfer or secondment from eligible Chief Engineers having the prescribed regular service.

Relying on Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy, (2011) 9 SCC 510, the Court distinguished promotion from upgradation and held that upgradation does not automatically create a new post; where a higher grade involves selection or movement to a different post, it may constitute promotion, but an individual, temporary upgradation cannot bypass the governing cadre rules.

The Court further relied on U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Arun Kumar Mishra, (2017) 12 SCC 657, for the principle that upgradation cannot be used to cross into another cadre without amending the service rules and that appointments cannot be made contrary to the sanctioned cadre structure.

Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan, (2010) 4 SCC 290, holding that an eligible employee has a constitutional right under Articles 14 and 16 to fair consideration for promotion or appointment.

The Court held that the Chief Engineer cadre continued to comprise only one regular post because the Recruitment and Promotion Rules had not been amended.

The post occupied by respondent No. 4 was merely the petitioner’s former Superintending Engineer post, temporarily upgraded as a personal measure and expressly liable to revert when vacated. Such an arrangement neither created an additional regular Chief Engineer post nor conferred regular Chief Engineer status on respondent No. 4.

Although the petitioner’s delayed challenge to the 2023 upgradation suffered from delay and some acquiescence, that did not prevent her from challenging respondent No. 4’s subsequent appointment as CEO, particularly because the challenge to that appointment arose during the pendency of the writ petition.

Since respondent No. 4 did not hold a regular Chief Engineer post and had no regular service as Chief Engineer, he did not satisfy the eligibility requirement under the CEO Rules. The petitioner, in contrast, was the regularly promoted Chief Engineer, senior to respondent No. 4, and had completed the requisite service.

The redesignation of the petitioner’s post as Advisor (Policy & Strategy) could not alter the statutory cadre structure or deprive her of consideration for the sole CEO-cum-Secretary post, since the Advisor post was not a cadre post created under the applicable Rules.

However, financial benefits already drawn by him in that post were not ordered to be recovered.

The respondents were directed to fill the post of CEO-cum-Secretary strictly under the 2012 Rules, as amended, by considering only eligible candidates and by including the petitioner in the zone of consideration. The exercise was directed to be completed within two weeks.