ORDER : 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 01.07.2015, whereby petitioner was not found suitable for promotion to the post of Director, Technical Education (Annexure A-8), he approached erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 5440 of 2015, which now on account of abolishment of Tribunal, stands transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No. 6509 of 2019, praying therein for the following main reliefs: “(i) That the impugned order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure A-8) may kindly be quashed and set-side. (ii) That the impugned Notification dated 09.12.1999 (Annexure A-3), whereby Sh. Chamel Singh was illegally appointed as Director (Technical Education) may be declared as ultra-vires the (R&P) Rules and consequently respondents-department may be directed to consider the applicant for promotion to the said post from 9.12.1999, as per amended Rules, with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and arrears of pensionary benefits with interest at market rate on delayed payments.” 2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand are that petitioner was promoted as Joint Director vide Notification dated 06.04.1999 (Annexure A-1) and as such, he joined against the aforesaid post on 07.04.1999. (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules for the post of Director of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, as placed on record (Annexure A-2) reveal that Post of Director is to be filled by promotion from amongst the Joint Director (Technical Education) with 3 years regular service failing which from amongst the Joint Director (Technical Education) with 3 years regular service as Joint Director and Principle Polytechnic combined. Though in the year 1999, petitioner had become eligible to be promoted to the post of Director Technical Education, in terms of Rule 11 of the (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules (Annexure A-2), but respondents- State ignoring the claim of the petitioner, appointed one Sh. Chamel Singh (HAS), as Director Technical Education after transferring him from Controller, Printing & Stationery Department, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid action of the respondents, petitioner filed O.A. No. 2194 of 2000, laying therein challenge to notification dated 09.12.1999 (Annexure A-3), whereby above-named Chamel Singh HAS Officer, was appointed as Director. 3. Chamel Singh (HAS), as Director Technical Education after transferring him from Controller, Printing & Stationery Department, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid action of the respondents, petitioner filed O.A. No. 2194 of 2000, laying therein challenge to notification dated 09.12.1999 (Annexure A-3), whereby above-named Chamel Singh HAS Officer, was appointed as Director. 3. Claim put-forth by the petitioner was opposed by the respondents in the aforesaid Original Application by filing reply as well as supplementary affidavit, wherein respondents placed on record notification dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure A-4) to demonstrate that (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules to the post of Director Technical Education Vocational and Industrial Training, as placed on record (Annexure A-2), stand amended vide Notification dated 24.10.2000, wherein respondents provided that post of Director can be filled by promotion from amongst the Joint Director (Technical Education) with three years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc (rendered upto 31.03.98) service, failing which by promotion from amongst the Joint Director (Technical Education) with 5 years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc (rendered upto 31.03.1998) service combined as Joint Director and as Principal (Poly.), which shall also include essential service of two years as Joint Director or by deputation from amongst the incumbents of the IAS/HAS Officers. 4. Respondents claimed in their reply that as per amended (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, petitioner was not entitled to be promoted to the post of Director and as such, respondents rightly appointed Sh. Chamel Singh, HAS Officer as Director. 5. Having taken note of aforesaid stand adopted by respondents-State, Tribunal below vide order dated 01.05.2001, disposed of the aforesaid O.A. No. 2194 of 2000, thereby directing the respondents to fill up the post of Director (Technical Education) in accordance with (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules within three months from the date of the said order. Though, in terms of the aforesaid order, respondents considered the case of the petitioner for promotion, but did not find him suitable to be promoted against the post of Director (Technical Education) on the ground that he is left with 10 days of service. Though, in terms of the aforesaid order, respondents considered the case of the petitioner for promotion, but did not find him suitable to be promoted against the post of Director (Technical Education) on the ground that he is left with 10 days of service. Being aggrieved with the action of respondents in as much as, petitioner was not promoted against the post of Director, he filed Execution Petition No. 59 of 2008 before erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, but the same was transferred to this Court and this Court vide order dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure A-6) disposed of the same by observing that it is not clear in the order dated 1.5.2001, whether it is the un-amended or amended Rules, which had to be applied by the authorities while considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Director. 6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.08.2021, passed in execution petition as detailed hereinabove, petitioner filed LPA bearing No. 557 of 2011 (Annexure A-7). In the aforesaid LPA, Division Bench of this Court quashed and set aside the order passed by Single Judge in execution petition and directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the order passed by Tribunal below within a period of six weeks. In compliance of aforesaid judgment passed in LPA by Division Bench of this Court, respondents again considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Director (Technical Education), but rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that when DPC was held in terms of judgment dated 01.05.2021, passed by Tribunal, petitioner was not found suitable, as only 10 days were left for his retirement. Besides above, respondents also observed in the order detailed hereinabove that Sh. Chamel Singh being HAS Officer, had better experience and as per amended Rules, he could also be appointed as Director. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, passed by the respondents, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs as reproduced hereinabove. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that at the time of appointment of Sh. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, passed by the respondents, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs as reproduced hereinabove. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that at the time of appointment of Sh. Chamel Singh, HAS Officer as Director (Technical Education) on 09.12.1999, petitioner was eligible to be promoted against the post of Director (Technical Education) in terms of (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules (Annexure A-2). As per rule-11 of the aforesaid (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, post of Director was to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Joint Director (Technical Education) with 3 years regular service failing which from amongst the Joint Director (Technical Education) with 3 years regular service as Joint Director and Principle Polytechnic combined. Since petitioner was having more than 3 years experience combined Principal and Joint Director, he ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Director. However fact remains that such claim of him was not considered and HAS Officer namely Sh. Chamel Singh, was appointed against the post of Director. Subsequently, appointment of Sh. Chamel Singh against the post of Director (Technical) was sought to be defended by respondents on the ground that (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules for the post of Director (Technical Education) Vocational and Industrial Training stand amended vide Notification dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure A-4), wherein HAS Officer also became entitled to be appointed to the post of Director. Even, as per amended (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules petitioner was eligible to be promoted, but DPC convened for promotion to the post of Director, held petitioner not suitable for the reason because he had only left with 10 days’ job. However, question which remains to be decided, at this stage, is that “whether petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Director (Technical Education) on 9.12.1999 when for the first time, Sh. Chamel Singh, a HAS Officer was appointed by deputation?” Admittedly, on 09.12.1999, (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules were not amended, if it is so, petitioner, who by that time had more than 3 years experience of Joint Director (Technical Education) & Principal (Poly.), was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Director. Chamel Singh, a HAS Officer was appointed by deputation?” Admittedly, on 09.12.1999, (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules were not amended, if it is so, petitioner, who by that time had more than 3 years experience of Joint Director (Technical Education) & Principal (Poly.), was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Director. However, such claim of him was wrongly ignored and a HAS Officer was appointed against the post of Director dehors the Rules. No doubt, (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules came to be amended vide Notification dated 24.10.2000(Annexure A-4), but even under those Rules, petitioner was eligible to be promoted, but at that time, his claim was rejected on the ground that he has only left with 10 days of service. No doubt, vide Notification dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure A-4), whereby earlier (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules came to be amended, Sh. Chamel Singh came to be appointed against the post of Director, but admittedly on 09.12.1999, it was only petitioner, who was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Director as per (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules in vogue. Since in un-amended Rules, there was no provision to appoint HAS Officer as Director, respondents ought to have considered the petitioner for promotion to the post of Director amongst other eligible candidates, if any. Since, petitioner was eligible for being considered against the post of Director at that relevant time, post of Director could not be filled up by appointing HAS Officer, that too, without considering the claim of the petitioner, who admittedly in terms of (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules in vogue, was very much entitled to be promoted to the post in question. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed and order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure A-8) is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of the Director Technical Education w.e.f. 09.12.1999 when he had become eligible for promotion to the aforesaid post. However, his promotion from 09.12.1999 to 31.05.2001, i.e. till his retirement will be on notional basis and he will be entitled to actual monetary benefits on the basis of such promotion from the date of his retirement and such financial benefits will be given to him in his pensionary benefits within a period of three months. 9. However, his promotion from 09.12.1999 to 31.05.2001, i.e. till his retirement will be on notional basis and he will be entitled to actual monetary benefits on the basis of such promotion from the date of his retirement and such financial benefits will be given to him in his pensionary benefits within a period of three months. 9. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any.