JUDGMENT : (Sandeep Sharma, J. ) Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the above captioned cases and petitioners herein have prayed for similar reliefs, this court heard them together and now same are being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. For having bird’s eye view, the facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioners herein, who after having passed diploma in Mechanical Engineering from recognized institutions were appointed as Drawing/Craft Instructor in the respondent-department on different dates as mentioned in the petitions. Initially, all the petitioners were appointed on contract basis, but subsequently their services were regularized in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Respondents framed Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Group Instructor known as the Himachal Pradesh, Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Department Recruitment & Promotion Rules 1987 (herein after referred to as the “Rules”), which were published in official Gazette/Rajpatra on 6.6.1989. 4. As per Columns 7 and 8 of the afore Rules, following minimum qualification is required for direct recruits as well as promotees or a person holding the post in feeder category for the post of Group Instructor: 7. Minimum educational & other qualifications required for direct recruits. Essential i) Matric with Science & Math from recognized University/Board or equivalent. ii) Three years Diploma in Engg. from a recognized State Board or Technical Education or equivalent. iii) Two years experience in an Industrial Training Institution and or in a Industrial concern 8 Whether age and . educational qualifications prescribed for direct will apply in the case of the promotees. Age ……….. Qualification ……. No. Yes. 5. Candidate having three year diploma in Engineering from a recognized State, Board or technical Education or equivalent, with two years experience in industrial training institution or in an industrial concern, is eligible to be appointed against the post of Group Instructor as direct recruit and a person already working as Craft Instructor or Drawing Instructor is also eligible to be promoted against the post of Group Instructor. 6. As per afore Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 75% posts of Group Instructor are to be filled by way of promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. 6. As per afore Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 75% posts of Group Instructor are to be filled by way of promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. Since eligibility criteria is common for both the categories, i.e. direct and promotee, a candidate is otherwise required to possess qualification in terms of afore Column 7. 7. Before petitioners herein, who are in-service candidates, could be considered for promotion to the post of Group Instructor, respondents by way of corrigendum dated 8/9.9.1988 (Annexure P-4) which ultimately came to be published in Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh, on 24.9.1998, substituted the word “yes” with word “no” in column No. 8 of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Group Instructor/Foreman/Millwright Foreman/ H.D.Q. Surveyor/Superintending (Technical) in the Department of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training Department notified by the Department notification dated 14.10.1997, as a result thereof, in- service candidates, who did not possess three years diploma in engineering from a recognized State Board or Technical Education with two years experience in industrial training institution, also became eligible for promotion to the post of Group Instructor. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with issuance of afore corrigendum, petitioners alongwith other similarly situate persons approached this Court by way of CWPOA No. 51 of 2019 (alongwith connected matters), titled Jitender Singh Rangta and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. , which ultimately came to be allowed vide judgment dated 10.7.2020 (Annexure P-5). Division Bench of this Court while setting aside corrigendum dated 8.9.1988, published in Rajpatra on 24.9.1888, directed the respondents, not to consider corrigendum dated 8.9.1988, for the purpose of making promotions to the post of Group Instructor. Division Bench of this Court specifically called upon the respondents to make promotions strictly in accordance with Recruitment & Promotion Rules. 9. Though being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, one of the aggrieved party, approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1884/2021 titled Gurdev Singh v. Himachal Pradesh and Ors. , but same was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2024, as a result thereof, judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court came to be affirmed. 10. , but same was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2024, as a result thereof, judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court came to be affirmed. 10. Pursuant to directions contained in the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, respondents though conducted DPC in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules and accordingly, granted promotions to the eligible candidates including the petitioners vide order dated 23.9.2020, with immediate effect (Annexure P-6). In the afore background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs (CWP No. 3993 of 2021) : i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to consider the candidature of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Group Instructors in accordance with “The Himachal Pradesh, Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training Department, Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1987” w.e.f. from the due date alongwith all consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances, in the interest of justice.” 11. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Adarsh Vashista, learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners herein were entitled to be promoted to the post of Group Instructor in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules w.e.f. the date they become eligible for promotion in terms of clause 16.29 of Chapter 16 of Handbook on Personnel Matters (Vol.1) 12. While referring to the aforesaid provision/instructions, Mr. Vashista, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that in cases where Departmental Promotion Committee could not be held for a particular year even though vacancies were available during that year, procedure as prescribed in afore instructions was required to be followed. He submitted that all the petitioners herein had acquired eligibility for being promoted to the post of Group Instructor as detailed in para-6 of the petition(s) and at the relevant time, vacancies were also available. If it is so, respondents while granting promotion to the petitioners ought to have resorted to procedure as laid down in Clause 16.29 of the afore instructions. 13. To the contrary, Mr. If it is so, respondents while granting promotion to the petitioners ought to have resorted to procedure as laid down in Clause 16.29 of the afore instructions. 13. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned action of respondents, submitted that since petitioners were considered for promotion by the DPC in the year 2020, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while giving them promotion from that date. He further submitted that it is not in dispute that prior to afore date, no vacancies were available, qua which, petitioners could be promoted. He further submitted that otherwise also, petitioners were granted promotion strictly in terms of judgment dated 10.7.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.51 of 2019, whereby direction was issued to promote the petitioners to the post of Group Instructor forthwith. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioners herein at the first instance being eligible were appointed against the posts of Craft Instructor/Drawing Instructor, which at the relevant time constituted feeder category for the post of Group Instructor. Similarly, it is not in dispute that prior to issuance of corrigendum dated 8.9.1988, minimum educational and other qualification required for direct recruits in column 7 of Rules was also applicable in the case of promotes, as is evident from columns 7 and 8 of the aforesaid rules. Though by way of issuing corrigendum as detailed herein, an attempt came to be made by the respondents to make distinction in qualification qua direct recruits and promotees, but as has been taken note herein above, Division Bench of this Court by way of judgment dated 10.7.2020 passed in CWPOA No.51 of 2019, not only quashed the corrigendum dated 8.9.1988, but also directed the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Group Instructor strictly in accordance with Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Though aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court was laid challenge by way of SLP by one of the affected party, but same was dismissed. Though aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court was laid challenge by way of SLP by one of the affected party, but same was dismissed. Respondents-State never laid challenge to the aforesaid judgment in superior court of law, rather in compliance of mandate contained in the same, respondents-State proceeded to promote the petitioners and other similarly situate persons to the post of Group Instructor, but from the date of order dated 23.9.2020 (Annexure P-6). 15. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that since they had become eligible for promotion against the post in question on the dates as detailed in the petitions and at the relevant time, vacancies were also available, they should have been promoted from those dates, but definitely not from the date of convening DPC in terms of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court i.e. 20.9.2020. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of clause 16.29, which reads as under: “16.29 Cases where the DPC could not be held any year even though some vacancies arose during that year (a) Preparation of year wise select lists. It has been decided that where the DPC could not be held in any year even though some vacancies arose during that year, the DPC that meets thereafter should follow the following procedure:- (i) Determine the actual number of regular vacancies that arose in each of the previous year/years immediately preceding and the actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the current year separately. (ii) Consider in respect of each year those officers only who would be within the field of choice with reference to the vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year onwards. (iii) Prepare a consolidated select list separately for each of the years starting with the earliest year onwards including the names of officers of reserved categories. (iv) Prepare a consolidated select list by placing the select list of the earlier year above the one for the next and so on. The above decision is operative with effect from 23rd June, 1984, i.e. the date on which the instructions were issued. It is clarified that past cases already decided will not be re-opened. (H.P. Government Department of Personnel letter No. PER(AP-II)A (1)-1/80-III, dated 23rd June, 1984-Annexure -16.24). 16. The above decision is operative with effect from 23rd June, 1984, i.e. the date on which the instructions were issued. It is clarified that past cases already decided will not be re-opened. (H.P. Government Department of Personnel letter No. PER(AP-II)A (1)-1/80-III, dated 23rd June, 1984-Annexure -16.24). 16. Careful perusal of aforesaid instructions reveals that where DPC could not be held in any particular year despite there being availability of vacancies, promotion would be granted to the eligible candidates after determining the actual number of regular vacancies that arose in each of the previous year/years immediately preceding and the actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the current year separately. As per aforesaid procedure, Departmental Promotion Committee would consider vacancies of each year and shall prepare a consolidated list separately for each of the year starting from the earliest year onward including the names of the officers of the reserved categories. In para-6 of the reply, it has been specifically averred that petitioners namely Mr. Rajiv Batra, Mr. Nagesh Kumar Bhardwaj, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Nand Kishore, Mr. Vivek Gautam, Mr. Rajinder Singh Mehta, Mr. Suraj Prakash Jinta and Mr. Kamal Kishore, had become eligible to be promoted against the post of Group Instructor in 2006, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017. Aforesaid submissions made in para-6 have been not refuted by the respondents, rather stand duly admitted. It has been also admitted by the respondents in their reply that in afore years, vacancies were very much available qua which petitioners herein could be promoted. 17. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General while justifying the impugned action of the respondents, attempted to argue that promotion order has been passed strictly in conformity with the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, but having perused judgment passed by the Division Bench, this court finds no force in the submissions of Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. At no point of time, Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners from any particular date, rather it simply directed that promotion orders be passed strictly in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules occupying the field. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. At no point of time, Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners from any particular date, rather it simply directed that promotion orders be passed strictly in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules occupying the field. Since vide aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, corrigendum otherwise attempted to be pressed into service by the respondents was set aside and not made applicable in the case of the petitioners and direction was issued to grant promotion to the petitioners as well as similarly situate persons in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, containing similar educational qualification for categories of direct recruits and promotees, petitioners herein are right in contending that they ought to have granted promotion from the date they had become eligible for the same, especially when there is nothing to demonstrate that at the relevant time, no post of the Group Instructor was available. 18. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to hold a review DPC for promoting the petitioners herein to the posts of Group Instructors, as per procedure contained in Clause 16.29 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, by preparing year wise vacancy position and consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Group Instructors, from dates, when they had attained eligibility and posts became available. Petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of this order. Petitions stand disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated.