ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: (i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued thereby quashing and sting aside Annexure P-9, i.e. Recruitment and Promotion Rules, for the post of Statistician, to the extent, in clause 7, qualification of M.A. Public Administration has been removed and also to the extent whereby in Clause-8, educational qualification has been made applicable in the case of promotees. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Statistician from the year 1999, when she was eligible as per proposed Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Annexure P-4) with all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears, seniority etc. etc. (iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to assign correct seniority to the petitioner, after promoting her as Statistician from the date other Statistical Assistants were promoted vide Annexure P-8. (iv) In the meantime, if aforesaid prayers do not find favour with this Hon’ble Court, it is prayed that respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Statistician by relaxing the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (hereinafter ‘proposed Rules’) in her case, keeping in view the fact that she would retire in three years, without getting even a single promotion. 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that on 18.8.1988, petitioner was appointed as Statistical Assistant in the Directorate of Education (HP) in the pay scale of Rs. 570-1,080 and was posted in the office of District Education Officer, Solan. In January, 1996 and July, 1997, respondent-department proposed to fill up six posts of Statistician on deputation basis from other departments and one more post of Statistician in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/-. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the afore decision of the respondent-State, one Naresh Kumar, Statistical Assistant, approached erstwhile Administration Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 142 of 1996, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.10.1996, (Annexure P-5). 2,000-3,500/-. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the afore decision of the respondent-State, one Naresh Kumar, Statistical Assistant, approached erstwhile Administration Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 142 of 1996, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.10.1996, (Annexure P-5). Erstwhile Tribunal vide aforesaid order, directed the respondents to fill up the posts of Statisticians by way of promotions of Statistical Assistants working in the Education Department, on the basis of proposed draft Rules, because at the relevant time, Rules for the post of Statistician had not been framed. In the aforesaid order, erstwhile Tribunal observed that, “In the light of all this, it seems reasonable that the post should be filled up from the departmental candidates on the proposed draft R&P Rules as they are in conformity with the Rules of Statistical Officers of the Education Department which carries the scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000 and it is to be filled up from the eligible Statistical Assistants having five years of service.” 4. On 6.2.1996, proposed Rules for the post of Statistician were sent by the Education Department for approval, wherein clause 7 provided as under: “Minimum Educational and Other qualifications, required for direct recruits” Master’s Degree in Economics/Statistics/Mathematics/Commerce/Public Administration. Vide Communication No. EDN-H (PRY)-4-4-335-97 dated 9.7.1997 and 25.7.1997, Director Primary Education sponsored names of Statistical Assistants for promotion as Statistician as per proposed/draft Rules in terms of the order dated 16.10.1996 passed by erstwhile Tribunal in O.A. No. 142 of 1996. Vide notification dated 25.5.1999, respondents promoted the Statistical Assistants to the post of Statistician in the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640 on ad hoc basis but the petitioner, who at the relevant time was also eligible, was ignored. Petitioner alongwith similarly situate persons filed O.A. No. 1684 of 2002, laying therein challenge to the action of the respondents, inasmuch as they ignored him/them, for promotion to the post of Statistician. On account of abolishment of Tribunal, afore case came to be transferred to this Court and was reregistered as CWP (T) No 6262 of 2008. Before aforesaid case could be heard and decided, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification dated 18.06.2002, framed Rules for the post of Statistician thereby removing the subject of Public Administration from the educational qualification. On 2.8.2010, aforesaid petition was dismissed (Annexure P-13). Before aforesaid case could be heard and decided, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification dated 18.06.2002, framed Rules for the post of Statistician thereby removing the subject of Public Administration from the educational qualification. On 2.8.2010, aforesaid petition was dismissed (Annexure P-13). Against the aforesaid order, petitioner filed review petition No. 146 of 2012, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 8.8.2012 (Annexure P-15).” 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 8.8.2012, petitioner alongwith other persons filed LPA No. 494 of 2012 alongwith CWP (T) No. 8530 of 2008 (Annexure P-16), which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.12.2012(Annexure P-16). Vide aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court held that, “in any event, we are of the considered opinion that it is for the employer to decide what qualifications should be prescribed for a particular post and unless it is shown that such qualifications have no concern with the job, the Court would normally not interfere in such matters.” Lastly, in the aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court held that the employer has only provided that for the higher post of Statistician the persons falling in the feeder category must have a master degree. This directly relates to the job and cannot be said to be arbitrary rule. However, careful perusal of aforesaid judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court nowhere suggests that qualification possessed by the petitioner i.e. MA Public Administration was not held to be a qualification required to be possessed by an employee, to be promoted against the post in question. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid action of the respondents, petitioner filed an O.A. No. 1684 of 2002 in the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, laying therein challenge to aforesaid Rules, especially educational qualification. However, aforesaid original application was transferred on account of abolition of tribunal and was re-registered as CWP (T) No. 8530 of 2008, which came to be decided with LPA No. 494 of 2012 decided on 12.12.2012, details whereof have been given in para supra. Subsequent to passing of aforesaid judgments, petitioner received information under Right to Information Act (Annexure P-290), wherein it came to be disclosed that Madhu Verma, petitioner herein (Statistical Assistant) was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Statistician as per proposed Rules at the relevant time. Subsequent to passing of aforesaid judgments, petitioner received information under Right to Information Act (Annexure P-290), wherein it came to be disclosed that Madhu Verma, petitioner herein (Statistical Assistant) was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Statistician as per proposed Rules at the relevant time. Precisely the grouse of the petitioner at this stage is that when respondents pursuant to directions issued by erstwhile Tribunal in O.A. No. 142 of 1996, Rakesh Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, promoted certain Statistical Assistants to the post of Statistician on the basis of proposed/draft Rules and her case was also recommended alongwith other eligible candidates, she could not have been ignored for promotion, especially when in proposed/draft Rules, Master’s in (Public Administration) was one of the prescribed qualifications. Information obtained under Right to Information Act, available at Page 292 of paper book, further reveals that petitioner was similarly situate to those persons, who were promoted in 1999 and her case was also recommended at S. No. 7 by the Director, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Though, after promotion of similarly situate person in the year 1999, much water has flown because thereafter respondents framed Rules for the post of Statistician in the year 2002, thereby removing subject of MA in Public Administration but precise question which needs to be determined in the present case is “whether the petitioner could be ignored in the year1999 when other Statistical Assistant were considered for the post of Statistician on the basis of draft Rules, wherein admittedly person having master degree in public administration was eligible to be promoted to the post Statistician?” 7. Reply filed by the respondents is silent qua aforesaid aspect of the matter, rather, it has been categorically stated that pursuant to decision dated 16.10.1996 rendered by erstwhile Tribunal, Director Primary Education sponsored the names of Statistical Assistant including petitioner for promotion to the post of Statistician. 8. Reply filed by the respondents is silent qua aforesaid aspect of the matter, rather, it has been categorically stated that pursuant to decision dated 16.10.1996 rendered by erstwhile Tribunal, Director Primary Education sponsored the names of Statistical Assistant including petitioner for promotion to the post of Statistician. 8. True, it is that after 18.6.2002, when respondents framed Rules for the post of Statistician, petitioner herein was not eligible for promotion to the post of Statistician on account of her qualification because admittedly in the aforesaid Rules, person having master degree in public administration is not entitled for promotion to the post of Statistician but in the case at hand, case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Statistician was required to be considered in the year 1999, when respondents in compliance to order dated 16.10.1996 passed in O.A. No. 142 of 1996, Naresh Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh considered other persons for promotion to the post of statistician in terms of proposed/draft Rules, wherein admittedly persons having qualification of Master’s degree in Public Administration was eligible for promotion to the post of Statistician. Since the petitioner was fully eligible to be considered for promotion to the post Statistician in the year 1999, when promotions were made or were being made on the basis of draft Rules, respondents at this stage, cannot be permitted to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground that in the Rules framed in the year 2002, persons having master’s degree in public administration are not eligible to be promoted to the post of Statistician. 9. Since it is quite apparent from the reply filed by the respondents, wherein they have admitted that Director Primary Education had sponsored name of the petitioner to the government for promotion to the post of Statistician in terms of draft Rules, pursuant to decision dated 16.10.1996, rendered by erstwhile Tribunal in O.A. No. 142 of 1996, this Court has a reason to believe and presume that at that relevant time, petitioner was fully eligible to be promoted as Statistician but for no fault of hers, she was not promoted. 10. Mr. Narinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently argued that since there is inordinate delay in filing the petition at hand, reliefs, as prayed for, in the instant petition, cannot be granted at this belated stage. 11. 10. Mr. Narinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently argued that since there is inordinate delay in filing the petition at hand, reliefs, as prayed for, in the instant petition, cannot be granted at this belated stage. 11. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner had been fighting for her rightful claim since the year 1999 and in this regard, she repeatedly approached competent court of law, this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid objection and same is accordingly dismissed. Otherwise also, petitioner on account of her being not promoted despite her being eligible in the year 1999, is suffering continuously and as such, petition being filed by her, cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. 12. Consequently, in view of above, this court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed and respondents are directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Statistician from the date, other persons, i.e. Naresh Kumar’s and Others were given such benefit of promotion on the basis of draft Rules, in terms of order rendered by erstwhile Tribunal in O.A. No. 142 of 1996, alongwith consequential benefits. 13. Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms alongwith all pending applications.