JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition (amended writ petition), the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) That the impugned orders, dated 06.09.2013 (Annexure P-3) whereby respondent No. 2 was designated as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, may kindly be quashed and set aside; (b) That adhoc promotion order of respondent No. 2 dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside; (c) That the impugned promotion order dated 01.10.2014, Annexure P-7 may kindly be quashed and set aside having been passed contrary to all norms of service jurisprudence by giving total goodbye to the merit and also the seniority and further without holding the DPC (subject to correction) secure law and justice with a direction that the matter may be considered again and the petitioner may kindly be promoted being senior to respondent No. 2 herein from the date respondent No. 2 was promoted with all consequential benefits, pay, seniority etc., in the interest of justice. (d) That Notification dated 21.11.2016 issued by respondent No. 1 qua respondent No. 2 being bad in the eyes of law may very kindly be quashed and set aside with a direction to proceed in the matter afresh after holding DPC (subject to correction), in view of the norms of service jurisprudence following the procedure as laid down in the Rules i.e. merit-cum-seniority and the case of the petitioner be considered sympathetically. (e) That the impugned order Annexure P-6 whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, may very kindly be quashed thereby allowing the representation of the petitioner in the interest of justice equity and fair play. (f) That the entire record of the case may very kindly be summoned from the respondents for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (g) That writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs. (h) That any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition are that as per petitioner, he joined as a Steno-Typist on 30.03.1983 in Civil and Sessions Division, Una. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition are that as per petitioner, he joined as a Steno-Typist on 30.03.1983 in Civil and Sessions Division, Una. In the year 1990, he joined as such in Civil and Sessions Division, Hamirpur and was appointed as a Senior Scale Stenographer in High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the month of April, 1992, where he joined as such on 26.04.1992. He was promoted as Judgment Writer on 15.07.1995. Thereafter, he was promoted against the post of Private Secretary on 07.07.2001 and as Secretary on 08.01.2009. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 2 was appointed as Senior Scale Stenographer in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 23.04.1992 and he was promoted as Personal Assistant on 15.07.1995. He was thereafter promoted as Private Secretary on 07.07.2001 and as Secretary on 08.01.2009. Said respondent was designated as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 06.09.2013. As per the petitioner, when the private respondent was designated as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, seniority was not taken into consideration. Further, as per the petitioner, vide Notification dated 21.06.2013 (Annexure P-2), Shri Devinder Chopra, Secretary was promoted and appointed as Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice and vide order dated 06.09.2013, said Shri Devinder Chopra was transferred and posted as Deputy Registrar (Accounts), whereas respondent No. 2 was designated as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice. As per the petitioner, for the purpose of designating a Secretary as Principal Private Secretary, seniority was required to be taken into consideration and as he was admittedly senior to respondent No. 2, grave injustice and prejudice was caused to him on account of his being ignored for being designated as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice. It is further the case of the petitioner that this was followed by issuance of Notification dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure P-4) vide which, respondent No. 2 was promoted as Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice on adhoc basis against recently upgraded post of Secretary on his own pay scale, grade pay and special pay etc. and other allowances as admissible under law for discharging the duties and responsibilities of a higher post. and other allowances as admissible under law for discharging the duties and responsibilities of a higher post. Against this, representation was filed by the petitioner, i.e., Annexure P-5 dated 24.04.2014, which was rejected, as conveyed to him vide Annexure P-6. As per the petitioner, thereafter vide Notification dated 01.10.2014, respondent No. 2 was promoted and appointed as Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice on regular basis against the upgraded post of Secretary with effect from the date respondent No. 2 was promoted as such on adhoc basis, i.e. 25th February, 2014. It was further the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the petition, the post in issue was upgraded by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification dated 16th November, 2016 as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice and the private respondent was promoted against the said post vide Notification dated 21.11.2016 (Annexure P-9). 3. The designations and promotions so conferred upon the respondent No. 2 have been challenged by way of this writ petition on the grounds that respondent No. 2 was designated as Principal Private Secretary without considering the claim of the petitioner, who admittedly was senior to the private respondent and further promotion conferred upon respondent No. 2 on adhoc basis was contrary to the settled norms and law and further conferring regular promotion upon him with all monetary benefits from the date of adhoc promotion amounted to arbitrary and colourable exercise of powers. According to the petitioner, the private respondent was not even in the zone of consideration for being considered for promotion and in these circumstances, his superseding incumbents who were in the zone of consideration was highly arbitrary. The representation of the petitioner stood dismissed by a non speaking order. Promotions conferred upon the private respondent were bad as no Rules stood framed in this regard and the promotion so conferred upon respondent No. 2 was with a malafide intention or at least with a legal malafide intention. On these bases, the petitioner has prayed for the reliefs already quoted hereinabove. 4. In its reply filed by respondent No. 1, all the allegations leveled by the petitioner were refuted. On these bases, the petitioner has prayed for the reliefs already quoted hereinabove. 4. In its reply filed by respondent No. 1, all the allegations leveled by the petitioner were refuted. It was mentioned in the preliminary submissions/objections that in the past officers in the rank of Deputy Registrar/Additional Registrar were performing the functions of Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, however, said officers were always overburdened with other administrative works and had to perform other functions also. As per said respondent, as it is the Principal Private Secretary, who is looking after all the affairs in the Secretariat of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, therefore, it had become imperative for respondent No. 1 to have a separate post of Principle Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice. It was in this background that incumbent holding the post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice was transferred and posted as Deputy Registrar (Accounts). 5. Further, as per respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 was posted with Hon’ble the Chief Justice and owing to the significance of the work attached with the Secretariat of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the post of Secretary being held by respondent No. 2 was designated as Principal Private Secretary vide order dated 06.09.2013. Thereafter, simultaneously respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 25.10.2013 took up the matter with the State Government for creation of one post of the status of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary or to upgrade the post of Secretary to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary. The State Government vide letter dated 22.11.2013 sought information on certain aspects of the matter, which was duly supplied to the State. Thereafter, State Government vide letter dated 22.02.2014 accorded approval for up-gradation of the post of Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/- +Rs.7600/- (GP) +Rs.2500/- Secretariat Allowance. After up-gradation of the post of Secretary to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the category of Secretary was considered for filling up the said post. Accordingly, five senior most Secretaries, which also included the present petitioner were considered on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. After up-gradation of the post of Secretary to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the category of Secretary was considered for filling up the said post. Accordingly, five senior most Secretaries, which also included the present petitioner were considered on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. As respondent No. 2 was already designated as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide office order dated 06.09.2013 and he was discharging higher duties and responsibilities attached to the said post satisfactorily and nothing averse was found against him which could have rendered him unfit/disqualified for appointment/promotion against the newly upgraded post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary and as respondent No. 2 was also more qualified as compared to other Secretaries including the petitioner, therefore, he was promoted on adhoc basis as Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice against the newly upgraded post subject to conditions mentioned in the said promotion order. The entire process initiated for promotion was monitored by the Appointing Authority. In the absence of their being any Rules available to fill up the newly upgraded post and as the petitioner was considered for the purpose of promotion but respondent No. 2 was found more meritorious, the petitioner was not having any locus to file and maintain the writ petition as no harm or prejudice had been caused to him. It was further mentioned in the preliminary submissions that representation of the petitioner was duly considered by the replying respondent and his claim was not found sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan and others, 1993 (1) SLR 544. It was further mentioned in the preliminary objections that subsequently respondent No. 2, who was earlier appointed/promoted on adhoc basis, was thereafter appointed/promoted on regular basis against the upgraded post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary vide Notification dated 01.10.2014. On merits, respondent No. 1 reiterated the stand submitted in preliminary submissions and denied the contentions of the petitioner that the designations/promotions conferred upon respondent No. 2 were by ignoring seniority and by violating the rights of persons like the petitioner or that the designations or promotions were an act of colourable exercise of powers or were a result of malafides. 6. 6. By way of rejoinder, the stand so taken by the petitioner was reiterated and the stand taken by respondent No. 1 in the reply was denied. 7. Respondent No. 2, despite service, did not put in appearance, accordingly he was proceeded against ex parte. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as the records produced before the Court by respondent No. 1. 9. Undisputed facts as they emerge from the respective pleadings of the parties as well as the records of the case are as under: 10. Records demonstrate that respondent No. 2 was designated as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide office order on 06.09.2013 when Shri Devinder Chopra, Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice was transferred and posted as Deputy Registrar (Accounts). The designation of respondent No. 2 as such was not assailed by the present petitioner. 11. Records also demonstrate that on 25th October, 2013, a communication was addressed by the Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh to Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Himachal Pradesh on the subject “Regarding creation of a post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice or upgradation of the post of Secretary as such”. Contents of this communication are reproduced hereinbelow: “……………………. Sir, I am to say that there is no separate post of Principal Private Secretary in the office of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Previously, an officer in the rank of Deputy Registrar/Additional Registrar was performing the functions of Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice. However, the said officers are always overburdened with other important administrative work and have to perform other functions also as a result of which the efficiency and work of the office of Chief Justice is adversely affected. Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice is to look after the affairs of the prestigious office of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. There are several matters of confidential and important nature which the office of the Chief Justice has to deal with from time to time and in order to deal effectively with such important, confidential and sensitive matters, a separate post of Principal Private Secretary in the rank of Deputy Registrar or above is imperative. There are several matters of confidential and important nature which the office of the Chief Justice has to deal with from time to time and in order to deal effectively with such important, confidential and sensitive matters, a separate post of Principal Private Secretary in the rank of Deputy Registrar or above is imperative. In other High Courts also the post of Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice is manned by a senior officer who performs the functions relating to important and confidential matters. The duties and responsibilities are quite peculiar, important and arduous in nature and that being so, no officer who is not conversant with such work can abruptly be asked and deputed to function as Principal Private Secretary as this exercise may prove futile sometimes besides causing inconvenience and hindrance in the smooth functioning of the work of the office of the Chief Justice. The matter was placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his Lordship has been pleased to direct to take up the matter with the Government of Himachal Pradesh for creation of a post of the status of the Deputy Registrar-cum- Principal Private Secretary or to upgrade the post of Secretary to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary befitting the status and significance of work. I have, therefore, been directed to request you to create a post in the rank of the Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary or to upgrade the post of Secretary to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.15600-30100+Rs.7600/-+Rs.2500/-. Financial implication on creation of post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice is meager as the Officer appointed against such post has already reached over the pay scale of the post. In case, it is not possible to create new post in alternate, the post of Secretary may kindly be upgraded to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice. An early action is requested please.” 12. This was followed by communication dated 22.11.2013 from Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh on the subject “Regarding creation of a post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice or up-gradation of the post of Secretary as such”, which reads as under: “…………….. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter HHC/Admn. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter HHC/Admn. 1(27)/74-X-81 dated 25th October, 2013 on the subject cited above and to say that the matter was examined in consultation with Finance Department. Before further action is taken in the matter, you are requested on the administrative side, to kindly send the information/data on the following points:- a. Complete service profile of the incumbent to be upgraded on the said post viz. date of his/her first appointment in Government & superannuation, his/her stay on each post he/she remained and now the time left for his/her retirement; b. Number of promotional avenues including ACPS availed by him/her in their entire service so far; c. Full justification/facts for the proposed upgradation of post; d. Impact of such proposal in other Government Department/PSUs; e. Financial implication involved vis-à-vis corresponding budgetary provisions under relevant HOA/SOE; f. Matching economy in terms of abolition of equal number of vacant or unwanted posts.” 13. In response to the abovementioned communication, Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed a communication dated 2nd December, 2013 to Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In this communication, details of Sh. Prem Chand Verma were given and other queries which were raised by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 22.11.2013, were also addressed. This was followed by a communication dated 06.01.2014 addressed from the Home Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on the subject “Regarding creation of a post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble Chief Justice or up-gradation of the post of Secretary as such”, which reads as under: “……………. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. HHC/ADmn. 1(27)/74-X-104 dated 3rd December, 2013 on the subject cited above and to state that the present incumbent of the post of Secretary to his Lordship the Chief Justice, vide Office Order No. HHC/Admn. 1(18)/78-XII-Loose dated 6.9.2013, has been designated as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble Chief Justice. While the change of designation may appear to be a simple change without any other implications, especially when the Office Order does not speak of any revision of payscale, yet it needs to be pointed out that such change of designation could be ill advised. 1(18)/78-XII-Loose dated 6.9.2013, has been designated as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble Chief Justice. While the change of designation may appear to be a simple change without any other implications, especially when the Office Order does not speak of any revision of payscale, yet it needs to be pointed out that such change of designation could be ill advised. It is quite possible that in the years to come, the official may claim that since his designation was/is Principal Private Secretary, he may be given the payscale of that designation which is considerably higher than that of Secretary. Therefore it is advisable that as a first step, this Office Order dated 6.9.2013 be amended and a clarification added that the change of designation will not entitle the incumbent to higher payscale or higher grade pay. 2. As regards creation of a post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice or upgradation of the post of Secretary as such, it is noted that the Grade Pay of Deputy Registrar is Rs.7600/- while the Grade Pay of the post of Secretary (held by the incumbent but with change in designation) is 6600/-. It is also noteworthy that the next promotion of Secretary is Dy. Registrar-cum-Special Secretary having Grade Pay of Rs.7600/-. Thus upgradation of the post of Secretary (re-designated as Principal Private Secretary) to a new post called Dy. Registrar-cum- Principal Private Secretary would mean that the incumbent would get higher Grade Pay without promotion or may so claim at a future date. As per the R&P Rules, the Secretary is promoted to next level of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary after five years service. But in the instant proposal, the incumbent is getting the equivalent of promotion without actual promotion. 3. Accordingly you are requested to reconsider the matter as the Finance Department has expressed its inability to concur in the proposal.” 14. In response to this, Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed a communication dated 09.01.2014 to Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which reads as under: “………….. 3. Accordingly you are requested to reconsider the matter as the Finance Department has expressed its inability to concur in the proposal.” 14. In response to this, Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed a communication dated 09.01.2014 to Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which reads as under: “………….. Sir, I am to refer to your letter No. Home-B (A) 3-1/2002-67-dated 22/11/2013 on the captioned subject and to say that the novel mode of tilting the matter for up-gradation of posts Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice or up-gradation of the post of Secretary was placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. His Lordship has shown displeasure for conveying the negation with harsh and commanding words to Supreme authority of the State Judiciary. Service conditions of the Officers and officials on the establishment of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh are governed and regulated by its own Rules framed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution of India keeping in view the changes and requirements of posts. The State Government has no locus-standi to impose its dictates on an independent constitutional body like High Court. The communication for creation/upgradation of post initially made and thereafter furnishing the desired information was not merely a communication but the “Recommendation” of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court. As per law laid down in case “State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. P.D. Attri, 1993(3) SCC 217 ” due deference and utmost consideration have to be given by the State Government to the recommendation of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court. In the case Union of India Versus S.B. Vohra & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 1501 the following was held: “11. Independence of the High Court is an essential feature for working of the democratic form of government in the country. An absolute control therefore, has been vested in the High Court over its staff which would be free from interference from the Government subject of course to the limitations imposed by the said provision. There cannot be, however, any doubt whatsoever that while exercising such a power the Chief Justice of the High Court would only be bound by the limitation contained in Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the proviso appended thereto. There cannot be, however, any doubt whatsoever that while exercising such a power the Chief Justice of the High Court would only be bound by the limitation contained in Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the proviso appended thereto. Approval of the President/Governor of the State is, thus, required to be obtained in relation to the rules containing provisions as regards salary, allowances, leave or promotion. It is trite that such approval should ordinarily be granted as a matter of course. xxx xxx xxx Decisions of this Court, as discussed hereinbefore, in no unmistakable terms suggest that it is the primary duty of the Union of India or the State concerned normally to accept the suggestion made by a holder of a high office like a Chief Justice of a High Court and differ with his recommendations only in exceptional cases. The reason for differing with the opinion of the holder of such high office must be cogent and sufficient. Even in case of such difference of opinion, the authorities must discuss amongst themselves and try to iron out differences. The appellant unfortunately did not perform its own duties.” As earlier submitted that the request for up-gradation of post was made on the recommendation of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and therefore, this request has to be considered in its right perspective. In the circumstances, I have been directed again to impress upon the Government for reconsideration of the matter for creation of post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary or for up-gradation of the post of Secretary to that the Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100+Rs.7600/-+Rs.2500/-. Kindly assign TOP PRIORITY to it.” 15. Kindly assign TOP PRIORITY to it.” 15. Vide communication dated 22.02.2014, addressed by the Department of Home, Government of Himachal Pradesh to High Court of Himachal Pradesh, the High Court was informed by the Government that Governor, Himachal Pradesh had accorded approval for the up-gradation of a post of Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court, which communication reads as under: “…………… Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter HHC/Admn.1(27)/74-X-118 dated 9th January, 2014 on the subject cited above and to say that the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to accord approval for the up-gradation of a post of Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court to Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/- +Rs.7600/- (GP)+Rs.2500/- Secretariat Allowance. This issues with the prior concurrence of Finance Department obtained vide their U.O. No. 52771570-Fin-F/2014, dated 07/02/2014 & 52795792-Fin (PR)-B(7)-15/2009, dated 11/02/2014 You are, therefore, requested to please take necessary action accordingly in this regard.” 16. This was followed by issuance of a notification by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 25.02.2014 (appended with the petition as Annexure P-4), vide which, Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice in exercise of powers vested in him under Article 229 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 4 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and the Members of the Staff (Recruitment, Conditions of Service, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 2003 and all other enabling powers in this behalf, promoted Shri Prem Chand Verma, Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice as Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice on adhoc basis against the recently upgraded post of Secretary subject to the condition that Shri Verma was to draw his own pay, grade pay and special pay etc. and other allowances as admissible under the law for discharging the duties and responsibilities of a higher post. 17. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the communication vide which the Government accorded approval for the upgradation of post of Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court to Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/-+Rs.7600/- (GP)+Rs.2500/- Secretariat Allowance, which was issued with prior concurrence of the Finance Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh, has not been assailed by the petitioner. This factor is important and relevant because the communications which were exchanged between the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Government of Himachal Pradesh, demonstrate that name of respondent No. 2 Prem Chand Verma was figuring in communications as the incumbent who was sought to be upgraded by respondent No. 1 and this fact was also in the knowledge of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who incidentally has not been impleaded as a party respondent. 18. As stated above, the Court has taken notice of the fact that the initial designation of respondent No. 2 as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide office order dated 06.09.2013 was not challenged by the petitioner. Even representation which was filed by the petitioner, appended with the petition as Annexure P-5 was addressed against the adhoc promotion which was conferred upon him and not against the initial designation. Office order dated 06.09.2013 for the first time came to be challenged only by way of the present petition. 19. Records also demonstrate that the representations which were so made by the petitioner were duly considered by respondent No. 1 and the same were rejected. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order vide which the representation of the petitioner was dismissed was a non-speaking order, this Court had asked learned counsel for the petitioner that would the petitioner be satisfied if the respondent No. 1 is directed to pass a speaking order on representation which was filed by the petitioner, to which it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without going into this aspect of the matter, the petition be decided on merit. 20. It is settled law that in case the original order or original act is not challenged, then the subsequent acts which are the result of that original order or original act cannot be assailed. As I have already discussed above, communication dated 21.02.2014, vide which Government accorded approval for up-gradation of post of Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice to Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/-+Rs.7600/- (GP)+Rs.2500/- Secretariat Allowance has not been assailed by the petitioner. When approval in this regard was accorded by the Government, it was aware of the fact that the incumbent who was sought to be up-graded by respondent No. 1, was respondent No. 2. When approval in this regard was accorded by the Government, it was aware of the fact that the incumbent who was sought to be up-graded by respondent No. 1, was respondent No. 2. In other words, the approval for up-gradation of the post of Secretary to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary was given by the State in favour of respondent No. 2 and this order has not been assailed by the petitioner. The adhoc promotion as well as regular promotion and thereafter up-gradation of the post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice to the post of Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the pay scale of Additional Registrar are outcome of the said sanction, which was granted by the Government. 21. In my considered view, in the absence of their being any challenge to the original/initial sanction so granted by the Government dated 22.02.2014, the petitioner cannot successfully even otherwise assail the subsequent notifications. This petition is, therefore, liable to fail on this account also. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra and others Vs. Deokar’s Distillery (2003) 5 SCC 669 , has held as under: “38. This apart, the High Court was also not right in rejecting the writ petition of the respondents at the threshold. The High Court has failed to notice another important factor that the statutory provision under Article 309, namely, the Notification dated 10.12.1998 and the consequential administrative instructions/orders issued for carrying out the executive function under Section 58A of the Prohibition Act and Article 162 namely, the circular letter dated 30.7.1999 had not been challenged by the respondents herein and, therefore, they were not entitled to challenge the demand notice which was merely a consequential communication. The High Court, therefore, is not right in quashing the demand notice issued by appellant No.4, namely, the Sub- Inspector of State Excise, in charge of the manufactory of the respondent, without examining the validity of or quashing the Rules of 1998 and the consequential circular letter dated 30.7.1999 issued by appellant No.2, namely, the Commissioner, since the demand notice was merely a consequential communication issued in furtherance of the Rules of 1998 and the circular letter dated 30.7.1999.” 23. Records further demonstrate that after up-gradation of the post of Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, candidature of five senior most Secretaries which included the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 was considered for the purpose of promotion to the said post on adhoc basis on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Relevant notings available on file in this regard are quoted hereinbelow: “Submitted that Shri Prem Chand Verma was posted as Secretary with the Hon’ble the Chief Justice as none of the other Secretaries or other officer of such status were found suitable for handling the entire work of the Secretariat of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Owing to the significance of the work attached with the Secretariat of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the post of Secretary being held by Shri Prem Chand Verma has been designated as Principal Private Secretary on 6.9.2013 (Flag “A”). Simultaneously Hon’ble the Chief Justice was pleased to order to take up the matter with the Government of Himachal Pradesh for creation of one post of the status of the Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary or to upgrade the post of Secretary to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary so that the holder of the important work can be bestowed with the monetary benefits. Matter was considered by the Government and repeated communications were made and lastly on the communication of this Registry dated 9.1.2014, the Joint Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 20.02.2014 (at page 17-18) has conveyed that the Governor of Himachal Pradesh has been pleased to accord approval for the up-gradation of a post of Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice to that of the Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/- +Rs.7600/- (GP) + Rs.2500/- Secretariat Allowance. As the post of Secretary being manned by Shri Prem Chand Verma, has been upgraded to that of the Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary and, therefore, being its new up-gradation there are no Rules for its filling up. However, for filling up the post of Deputy Registrar the mode of appointment in the R & P Rules is “Merit-cum-Seniority having five years service in the feeder cadre with Graduation”. However, for filling up the post of Deputy Registrar the mode of appointment in the R & P Rules is “Merit-cum-Seniority having five years service in the feeder cadre with Graduation”. In the past, the post of Readers were upgraded to that of Court Secretaries and the holders of the posts of Readers were promoted/appointed as such by ignoring even seniority. Not only this, in the year 1995 one post of Electrician and one post of Motor Mechanic were created and filled up by appointing the officials who were performing the duties attached to the post in the absence of R & P Rules. In this context it is submitted that the post of Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been upgraded to that of Deputy Registrar-cum- Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, therefore, the category of Secretaries has to be considered for the post in question. The bio-data of the five senior most Secretaries is as under: Sr. No. Name of the Secretary Qualification ACRs for the last five years Eligibility 1. Shri Tek Ram B.A. Part-1 i) 2009 Outstanding ii) 2010 Very good iii) 2011 Outstanding iv) 2012 Very Good v) 2013 Very Good Not eligible 2. Sh. Manohar Lal Sharma B.A. i) 2009 Very Good ii) 2010 Very Good iii) 2011 Very Good iv) 2012 Very Good v) 2013 Outstanding Eligible 3. Shri Hem Raj M.A. i) 2009 Very Good ii) 2010 Very Good iii) 2011 Very Good iv) 2012 Outstanding v) 2013 Outstanding Eligible 4. Sh. Ramesh Chand B.A. LL.B. i) 2009 Outstanding ii) 2010 Very Good iii) 2011 Outstanding iv) 2012 Outstanding v) 2013 Outstanding Eligible 5. Sh. Prem Chand Verma M.A., LL.B., B.G.L. i) 2009 Outstanding ii) 2010 Outstanding iii) 2011 Outstanding iv) 2012 Outstanding v) 2013 Outstanding Eligible The Annual Confidential Reports of the aforesaid officers are attached herewith. Moreover, the post of the Deputy Registrar is being filled up on the basis of merit-cum- seniority, therefore, the service record including the qualification of the Officers has to be considered. In the instant case, at the first instance owing to significance of the work of the Secretariat of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the post of Secretary being manned by Shri Prem Chand Verma has been re-designated as Principal Private Secretary on 6.9.2013 which has now been upgraded to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary. In the instant case, at the first instance owing to significance of the work of the Secretariat of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the post of Secretary being manned by Shri Prem Chand Verma has been re-designated as Principal Private Secretary on 6.9.2013 which has now been upgraded to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary. As the post of Secretary has been upgraded against which Shri Prem Chand Verma is working, therefore, he is having better claim to be considered for the post because he is discharging the duties attached to the post. Further after the posting of Shri Prem Chand Verma as Principal Private Secretary there is nothing adverse against him which render him unfit/disqualify for appointment/promotion against the newly up-graded post of Deputy Registrar-cum- Special Private Secretary. The Officer is having preferential claim to be promoted against the newly up-graded post as he is working as such since long and the post of Secretary being held by him, redesignated as Principal Private Secretary has been upgraded for him. The Officer Shri Prem Chand Verma is highly qualified having his qualification as M.A. LL.B. & BGL amongst all the Secretaries and as far as his service record is concerned the same is “Outstanding”. In view of the above submissions, as Shri Prem Chand Verma is holding the post of Principal Private Secretary and looking after the confidential and other work in the Secretariat of Hon’ble the Chief Justice without any monetary benefits since 6.9.2013 and the process for filling up the post will take some time, if approved, for the time being Shri Prem Chand Verma, Principal Private Secretary may kindly be ordered to be promoted on adhoc basis as Deputy Registrar-cum- Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice against the upgraded post in his own pay and grade with other allowances as admissible under law. However, submitted for consideration and orders, please.” 24. It was in this background that the private respondent was promoted on adhoc basis vide notification dated 25.02.2014. However, submitted for consideration and orders, please.” 24. It was in this background that the private respondent was promoted on adhoc basis vide notification dated 25.02.2014. The above categorically demonstrates that it is not as if no other incumbent was considered by respondent No. 1 for promotion to the post in issue on adhoc basis, however, as respondent No. 2 was found more eligible for being conferred adhoc promotion to the post in issue, therefore, in this background, he was promoted on adhoc basis as Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide notification dated 25.02.2014. 25. Similarly, records also demonstrate that before conferring regular promotion upon respondent No. 2 as Deputy Registrar-cum- Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, due exercise in this regard was undertaken by respondent No. 1, which included taking into consideration representations made by other incumbents which also included the present petitioner. Relevant notings dated 25.09.2014 in this regard are quoted hereinbelow: “In obedience with the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 16.06.2014 at note 69 ante, it is submitted that Shri Prem Chand Verma, was posted as Secretary with the Hon’ble the Chief Justice as none of the other Secretaries or other Officer of such status were found suitable. He was assigned the confidential and important affairs of the prestigious office of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and as such he was performing the functions of Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice which were being performed by an officer of the rank of Deputy Registrar/Additional Registrar. Owing to suitability of Shri Prem Chand Verma, he was designated/upgraded as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 6.9.2013. After the designation of Shri Prem Chand Verma, Secretary as Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the matter was taken up with the Government of Himachal Pradesh for creation of a post of the status of the Deputy Registrar-cum-Principal Private Secretary or to upgrade the post of Secretary as such befitting the status, significance and importance of the administrative work of the office of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. When the matter was pending consideration with the Government, clarification was sought by the Government on certain points, as detailed at note 8 ante. When the matter was pending consideration with the Government, clarification was sought by the Government on certain points, as detailed at note 8 ante. While furnishing the clarification, it was specifically mentioned that only a sum of Rs.20,980/- is involved for upgradation of the post and this amount was calculated on the pay being drawn by Shri Prem Chand Verma. As such in nut-shell, the post of Secretary manned by Shri Prem Chand Verma has been upgraded to that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice solely to bestow benefit as he was/is looking after the work of the higher post without any monetary benefit. After upgradation of the post of Secretary to Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary, the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/- + Rs.7600/- (GP) + Rs.2500 (Sectt. Allowance), Sh. Prem Chand Verma has been promoted as Deputy Registrar-cum- Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice on ad hoc basis subject to the condition that he shall draw his own pay, grade pay and special pay etc. and other allowances as admissible under the law for discharging the duties and responsibilities of a higher post. My predecessor-in-office in his submission has rightly submitted that Shri Prem Chand Verma has very well responded to the job requirements and to the expectations of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The Officer is having preferential claim to be promoted against the newly up-graded post as he is working as such for the last one year and even after upgradation of the post he has been promoted against the said post. There is nothing adverse against him which render him unfit/disqualify for appointment/promotion against the newly upgraded post of Deputy Registrar-cum- Special Private Secretary. Moreso, the Officer is highly qualified having his qualification of M.A. LL.B. & BGL amongst all the secretaries and as far as his service record is concerned the same is “Outstanding”. Shri Hem Raj and Shri Ramesh Chand Secretaries of this Registry have made representations for the appointment against the upgraded post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary. Their claim to be post is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide ratio laid down in “Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan and Others (1993) (1) S.L.R. 544”. Their claim to be post is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide ratio laid down in “Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan and Others (1993) (1) S.L.R. 544”. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, when a particular post is upgraded the holder of the said post only is entitled to be appointed against such upgraded post. This decision was applied in another case decided by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in Dr. T.V. Moorthy and another Vs. H.P. KVV and Others (1997) S.L.R. 554. Earlier also the post of Reader on the Establishment of this Registry were upgraded to that of Court Secretaries (Now Court Masters). The holder of the post of Readers were appointed against the upgraded post of Court Secretaries. It being so, there is no force in the representations of Shri Hem Raj and Shri Ramesh Chand and thus deserve to be rejected. In view of the above submissions, if approved, Sh. Prem Chand Verma, Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, on adhoc basis may kindly be ordered to be appointed/promoted on regular basis against the upgraded post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary in the pay scale of Rs.15600/-39100-+Rs.7600/-(GP) +Rs.2500 (Sectt. Allowance). However, submitted for consideration and orders please.” 26. It is in this backdrop that the private respondent was conferred regular promotion against the post of Deputy Registrar-cum- Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide notification dated 01.10.2014 w.e.f. 25.02.2014, i.e. the date since when respondent No. 2 was actually performing the duties of the office of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, though on adhoc basis. 27. Vide notification dated 16.11.2016, issued by Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice was upgraded to the post of Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the pay scale of Additional registrar. After the said up-gradation, the name of private respondent was considered for being promoted to the newly up-graded post, keeping in view the fact that the post which was up-graded, was being manned by respondent No. 2. After the said up-gradation, the name of private respondent was considered for being promoted to the newly up-graded post, keeping in view the fact that the post which was up-graded, was being manned by respondent No. 2. Records demonstrate that while considering the case of the private respondent for promotion to the said post, his Annual Confidential Reports for the last five years were perused and as nothing averse was found against him, accordingly his name was recommended for appointment to the up-graded post, pursuant to which, vide notification dated 21.11.2016, respondent No. 2 was promoted and appointed to the post of Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100+8400 Grade pay +Rs.2500/- Secretariat Pay. It is further pertinent to mention that respondent No. 2 as per records was the senior most Deputy Registrar in the seniority list of Deputy Registrars when he was considered for promotion from the said post to the upgraded post of Principal Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 28. Now, in this background, when we peruse the grounds on which the promotion conferred upon respondent No. 2 has been assailed by the petitioner, this Court finds that there is no merit in the same. 29. Though malafides/legal malafides have been alleged in the petition, however, except a bald assertion that promotions conferred upon respondent No. 2 are act of malafide/legal malafide, there is no substantiation of this allegation nor it is mentioned in the petition as to against whom these malafides were being alleged, i.e. the person who as per the petitioner conferred promotions upon respondent No. 2 with some ulterior motive. 30. Seniority list of Secretaries, which stands appended with the petition as Annexure P-1 demonstrates that the petitioner was not the senior most Secretary and the incumbents who are senior to the petitioner have not assailed the promotions conferred upon the petitioner. Therefore, even if it is hypothetically assumed that the promotions which have been conferred upon respondent No. 2 are not sustainable in law, then also the present petitioner does not has any locus to assail the same in view of the fact that incumbents senior to him in the seniority list have not assailed the said promotions and one writ petition which was filed by Shri Hem Raj, i.e. CWP No. 11/2015, who was senior to the petitioner, stood withdrawn by him on 17.08.2015. 31. The contention of the petitioner that seniority was ignored and he was not considered when promotions were conferred upon respondent No. 2 is also not sustainable. This is for the reason that as I have already discussed above, when adhoc promotion was conferred upon respondent No. 2 against the post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Special Private Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, not only the petitioner but other incumbents were also considered alongwith respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1 and after over all assessment of the merit of each of the candidates who were considered, the selection committee in its wisdom concluded that respondent No. 2 was the most meritorious. Now, the recommendations so made by the selection committee have not been assailed, nor during the course of arguments, it could be demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recommendations so made by the selection committee were either arbitrary or discriminatory or were based on extraneous considerations. Even otherwise, it is settled law that right to promotion is not a fundamental right and an employee only has a right to be considered for promotion. In the present case, records demonstrate that petitioner was considered alongwith other incumbents when adhoc promotion was conferred upon respondent No. 2, but respondent No. 2 was found more meritorious. 32. Accordingly, in view of the discussion held above, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.