JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Grievance of the petitioner herein is that despite exercising option by him, within one month after receiving the notice issued by respondents-Department, he has not been promoted to the post of Head Master, but his junior Nirmala Devi, has been appointed as Head Master vide impugned order dated 21.6.2016. Whereas plea of respondents-Department, to justify its action, is that petitioner had failed to exercise his option within one month of issuance of communication dated 17.9.2010, inviting the options. 2. Undisputed facts are that petitioner, initially, was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) under Scheduled Tribe Category vide order dated 29.6.1998. TGTs have two avenues for promotion, i.e. one to the post of Lecturer, subject to seniority coupled with eligibility for the said post and second to the post of Head Masters on the basis of seniority. Petitioner being in possession of degree of M.Sc. (Physics) was eligible to be promoted as Lecturer in Physics and also Head Master on his turn, on the basis of his position in the seniority list of TGTs. The post of Head Master as well as Lecturer is feeder category to the post of Principal. An incumbent irrespective of his seniority in TGT cadre may be promoted as Principal after becoming lecturer or Head Master on the basis of seniority in respective cadre in which he is posted i.e. Lecturer or Head Master irrespective of his seniority as TGT, subject to the availability of post of Principal in respective quota prescribed for Lecturer and/or Head Master. 3. Petitioner was promoted as Lecturer in Physics vide order dated 13.7.2010, as evident from office order dated 17th July, 2010 (Annexure A-4), without obtaining any option from him with respect to his preference of promotion to the post of Lecturer or Head Master. 4. In fact, respondents-Department was not seeking any option from TGTs before making their promotions to either of the channel i.e. Lecturers or Head Masters and as such, some of TGTs, who were seniors, but being promoted as Lecturer could not be promoted to the post of Principal, rather Head Masters who were junior as TGT were promoted to the post of Principal had assailed the practice of respondents by filing an Original Application No. 832 of 2007, titled Neelam Kaushal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. State of Himachal Pradesh. The said petition, on abolition of erstwhile tribunal in the year 2008, was transferred to this High Court and registered as CWP(T) No. 14932 of 2008 and was decided on 26.7.2010, wherein after referring provisions of R&P Rules as well as Instructions issued by the Government, it was held that it was envisaged in the Rules and Instructions that when there are two avenues of promotion, the person in the feeder category must be asked to exercise his option as to which promotional category he wants to be considered and once such option is exercised, then the same cannot be withdrawn and further that if options are taken then even if lien is retained, that will not help the employee, however, if no options are taken, then the promoted employee could be justified in claiming that he can be considered against the other post. The petition was disposed of with following directions:- "a. That no promotions made prior to 26th April, 2010 shall be affected by the outcome of this petition. However, since the promotions made after 26th April, 2010 were made expressly subject to the result of this petition they shall abide by the following directions. b. That henceforth and w.e.f. 26th April, 2010 before making any promotions to the post of Lecturers or Head Masters an option shall be sought from the concerned employee. c. Once an employee gives an option he/she will not be permitted to change the option. d. Once an employee opts to be promoted as Lecturer/Head Master he cannot claim that he should be considered for the other post. e. The Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the Director of Higher Education and Director of Elementary Education i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3 are made personally responsible for compliance of these directions in letter and spirit. f. All promotions, if any, made after 26th April, 2010 shall be reviewed and after seeking options of the employees in terms of the aforesaid direction the promotions shall be made." 5. f. All promotions, if any, made after 26th April, 2010 shall be reviewed and after seeking options of the employees in terms of the aforesaid direction the promotions shall be made." 5. In sequel to direction (f), respondents-Department had undertaken the exercise of inviting options and vide letter dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure A-5) a notice was circulated to all concerned, by referring aforesaid judgment of this High Court passed in CWP (T) No. 14932 of 2008, asking the Lecturers promoted after 26.4.2010, to exercise their option within one month, whether they would continue as Lecturers or were willing to be promoted as Head Masters, on the basis of seniority of TGTs and it was stated in the communication that option, so submitted, should be countersigned by the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) and further that option exercised after one month will be invalid. 6. The aforesaid communication dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure A-5) was received in the school i.e. Government Senior Secondary School, Karkoh, District Mandi, H.P., where petitioner was serving as Lecturer, on 23.11.2010 and it was circulated amongst the Lecturers promoted after 26.4.2010 for compliance, whereupon petitioner had exercised his option (Annexure A-6) for the post of Head Master, which was countersigned by the Principal being DDO and was submitted to the office of Directorate of Higher Education on 25.11.2010 vide dispatch No. 2821, as evident from certificate (Annexure A-7) issued by the Principal, which remained uncontroverted. 7. Respondents-Department vide office order dated 21.6.2016 (Annexure A-8), referring order dated 5.7.2012 passed by the High Court Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 1545 of 2011, titled Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, had made promotions to the post of Head Masters/Head Mistresses with immediate effect amongst from TGTs and promotee Lecturers (School Cadre), who had not opted for promotion as Lecturer at the time of promotion for omission on the part of Department but later on, in response to the Circular/communication of respondent Department had opted for promotion to the post of Head Master and were promoted Lecturers after 26.4.2010. In this order, last person at Sr. No. 156, Nirmala Devi, was promoted as Head Mistress against post reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. Her position in the seniority list as TGT was 7616, whereas position of petitioner in the seniority list was 7441. 8. In this order, last person at Sr. No. 156, Nirmala Devi, was promoted as Head Mistress against post reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. Her position in the seniority list as TGT was 7616, whereas position of petitioner in the seniority list was 7441. 8. Being aggrieved by the omission on the part of respondents/Department, resulting in denial of promotion of the petitioner as Head Master, the petitioner had preferred an Original Application No. 3924 of 2016 before erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla, which was decided vide order dated 1.11.2016 (Annexure A-9) with direction to the Director Higher Education Himachal Pradesh to consider the case of petitioner in terms of judgment passed by this High Court in CWP (T) No. 14932 of 2008 dated 26.7.2010, titled as Neelam Kaushal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, but subject to verification with respect to similarity of the case of the petitioner with the petitioner in the said judgment, with further direction that in case of similarity, the benefit of the said judgment, subject to finality thereof, shall also be extended to the petitioner along with consequential benefits, in accordance with law, without any discrimination within three months. 9. Respondents-Department vide office order dated 2.3.2017 (Annexure A-10) had rejected the claim of petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had failed to exercise his option within the time period stipulated in communication dated 17.9.2010 and had continued to enjoy the benefits of Lecturer, with further observation that petitioner has enjoyed one promotional avenue till last and, therefore, his option cannot be accepted to avail promotion in the second avenue to get the promotion as Head Master, alongwith other who were promoted in March, 2017, whereafter petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 10. It is submitted by the petitioner that in present case he is not praying for reversion of Nirmala Devi, as there are number of vacancies available with respondents-State to promote him (petitioner) as Head Master, without reverting Nirmala Devi. 11. The moot question for consideration is whether option (Annexure A-6) exercised by the petitioner is to be construed to have been exercised within stipulated period envisaged in communication dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure A-5). 12. 11. The moot question for consideration is whether option (Annexure A-6) exercised by the petitioner is to be construed to have been exercised within stipulated period envisaged in communication dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure A-5). 12. It is evident from copy of communication dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure A-5) that the said letter was received and circulated by the Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Karkoh, District Mandi on 23.11.2010 and in response thereto petitioner had exercised his option in the performa attached therewith to the post of Head Master and the said option was submitted to the Director of Higher Education on 25.11.2010 vide dispatch No. 2821. 13. In communication (Annexure A-5) the Lecturers promoted after 26.4.2010 were asked to exercise their option within one month, but this communication does not clarify that from which date one month was to be calculated. Though letter is dated 17.9.2010, but it is a matter of fact that it was received in the concerned school on 23.11.2010 and the said fact has not been controverted by the respondents/ Department, either in reply or otherwise. The only defence taken by the Department is that option was not exercised within one month from 17.9.2010. For silence of the communication dated 17.9.2010 with respect to starting point of one month during which option was to be exercised, the said one month is to be considered from the date of receipt of that communication and as petitioner had exercised his option within one month after receipt of the said letter, his option is to be considered within time. Follow up action on the option was to be taken by the Department. Petitioner was never informed that the option exercised by him was invalid. 14. It is not a case where exact cut-of-date has been notified by the State/Department for exercise of option and further in case the time for exercising the option be counted from 17.9.2010, then it was the duty of the respondents/Department to ensure delivery/receipt of this letter/communication in each institution immediately after issuance of it. 15. The action of respondents-State must be genuine, reasonable and practical. When its system was inefficient to ensure sending and receiving of the communication dated 17.9.2010 to and by the concerned institutions/schools within reasonable time, then the respondents/Department cannot be allowed to deny benefit to the petitioner for lapse on their own part for inefficient system. 15. The action of respondents-State must be genuine, reasonable and practical. When its system was inefficient to ensure sending and receiving of the communication dated 17.9.2010 to and by the concerned institutions/schools within reasonable time, then the respondents/Department cannot be allowed to deny benefit to the petitioner for lapse on their own part for inefficient system. Even if one month was to be counted from 17.9.2010, then for failure of respondents/Department to circulate the said communication amongst all relevant/interested employees, the State cannot take defence of late exercise of option by such an employee to whom this circular was circulated after expiry of not only one month, but much later thereto, after a period of more than 2 months i.e. on 23.11.2010. 16. The plea of respondents/Department that petitioner has enjoyed promotion as a Lecturer continuously irrespective of his option and therefore, he was not entitled to be considered for the promotion of Head Master, is also not tenable for the reason that, as evident from office order dated 21.6.2016 (Annexure A-8), a large number of incumbents, to say mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 to 11 and also at Sr.Nos. 147 to151, 153 and 154 etc., were serving as Lecturers at the time of passing of this order and they were promoted to the post of Head Masters/Head Mistresses with immediate effect, irrespective of the fact that they were also enjoying another avenue of promotion as Lecturer. It is not the case where respondents/Department had given the benefit of option to incumbents, on the basis of option exercised by them, immediately after expiry of one month from the date of issuance of communication dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure A-5), but it is a fact that on the basis of option exercised by Lecturers, the order of promotion as Head Masters was passed after about 6 years, i.e. on 21.6.2016. 17. It is informed that large number of posts of Head Masters are lying vacant and therefore, petitioner can be promoted as Head Master without reverting or disturbing Nirmala Devi or anybody else. 18. 17. It is informed that large number of posts of Head Masters are lying vacant and therefore, petitioner can be promoted as Head Master without reverting or disturbing Nirmala Devi or anybody else. 18. In view of above discussion, I find merit in the petition and thus hereby allow it, with direction to the respondents/Department to promote petitioner, on the basis of option given by him to the post of Head Master w.e.f. 21.6.2016, the date from which his junior was promoted as Head Master in the category of Scheduled Tribe, with all consequential benefits including further promotion, if any. The entire exercise shall be undertaken immediately and will be completed on or before 31st July, 2020. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations, so also the pending application(s), if any.