“Vacancy-Centric Roster Rule” – Himachal Pradesh High Court Reinforces 50:50 Direct Recruit–Promotee Balance
Comprehensive Commentary on Dr. Swati Aggarwal v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., CWP 5452/2020 (decided 05-06-2025)

1. Introduction

The judgment in Dr. Swati Aggarwal v. State of H.P. & Ors. revisits a perennial controversy in Indian public employment: how should a “50-50” quota between promotees and direct recruits be worked when vacancies arise sequentially over time? The case emerges from the Department of Medical Education, Himachal Pradesh, where Dr. Swati Aggarwal (petitioner), a senior General Duty Officer (GDO) with a postgraduate qualification in Pathology, challenged the 2016 promotion of her junior, Dr. Aruna (respondent 4), to the post of Assistant Professor in Dr. RPGMC, Tanda.

Key disputes:

• Whether the February 2016 vacancy ought to have been filled by direct recruitment (as contended by the petitioner) or by promotion (as done by the Government).
• Whether the Government’s later resolve (Dec 2017) to review the 2016 DPC and its subsequent withdrawal (Jan 2020) were valid.
• Whether the roster must revolve around “posts already held by promotees/direct recruits” or around the order in which vacancies arise.

Justice Satyen Vaidya, after dissecting the facts, previous admissions of the Government, and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and High Courts, allowed the writ, set aside the withdrawal order, and mandated a review DPC within four weeks.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. The Court quashed the impugned Government communication dated 24-01-2020 that had abandoned the proposed review DPC.
2. It directed Respondents 1-3 (State and departmental authorities) to conduct a review DPC in line with their earlier decision dated 05-12-2017.
3. Rationale: The February 2016 vacancy had to be filled by direct recruitment to maintain the statutory 50:50 quota; promoting Dr. Aruna disturbed this balance.
4. The Court relied on its own Division Bench precedent in Dr. Nikita Verma v. State of H.P. (2021) and the Supreme Court rulings in State of Punjab v. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar (1999) and Paramjit Singh’s case (1982).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• State of Punjab & Ors. v. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar (1999) 2 SCC 330
  Supreme Court held that where a cadre prescribes a fixed percentage for two sources, each vacancy is to be rotated in accordance with the quota, irrespective of who vacated the post. Justice Vaidya extracted long passages highlighting that filling a vacancy on the basis of “identity of incumbent retired” would skew the statutory ratio in perpetuity.
• Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 191 & (1982) 1 SCC 485
  These companion judgments clarified that quota applies at the recruitment stage; confirmations must follow the same vacancy-rotation. The High Court uses them to rebut the State’s “post-based” interpretation.
• Dr. Nikita Verma v. State of H.P. (DB, 13-08-2021)
  A Division Bench (of which Justice Vaidya was a member) had already rejected a nearly identical defence from the Government (Roster = post of outgoing incumbent). The present single-judge opinion leverages that decision to ensure doctrinal consistency within the High Court.
• Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol-I, Ch.13, Cl.6 (Explanation)
  Quoted to show that a 50 per cent roster rotates Promotion (1) – Direct (2) – Promotion (3) – Direct (4) and so on.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. The Rules for Assistant Professor (Pathology) prescribe 50 per cent by promotion (GDO with PG + 3-yr teaching) and 50 per cent by direct recruitment.
2. The vacancy chain (2011-2013 recruitments) shows: Promotee → Direct → Promotee. Therefore, the next slot (2016) must rotate back to Direct.
3. The Government’s own 2016 & 2018 communications admit that no GDO vacancy existed for promotion in Feb 2016 and that respondent 4 was “promoted against higher post”. Hence, the administration contravened its Rules.
4. The later withdrawal of review DPC (2020) had no factual/legal basis and thus deserved quashing.
5. The “identity-of-incumbent” theory advanced by the respondents (if a promotee vacates, promotee gets the seat) collapses because:
   • It frustrates the 50:50 goal;
   • It was already repudiated by the Supreme Court (Bhatnagar) and the Division Bench (Nikita Verma);
   • Quota rights accrue to sources of recruitment, not to individual posts labelled for life.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Roster vs. Quota: “Quota” is the percentage split (e.g., 50:50). “Roster” is the running sequence that operationalises the quota vacancy by vacancy. Picture a conveyor belt labelled P-D-P-D-P-D…
• Vacancy-Centric Rule: Each time someone leaves, you move to the next slot on the roster, not backfill with the same category as the one who departed.
• Review DPC: A fresh Departmental Promotion Committee convened to reassess promotions because of legal/ procedural error earlier.
• Higher Post Promotion: Sometimes officers are “pushed up” to a higher post when the regular post is blocked; the Court clarifies that such ad-hocism cannot bypass quota rules.
• Admissions in Pleadings: Statements made by Government in an earlier case (OA 31/2018) are binding and can be used as evidence of fact.

5. Conclusion

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision crafts a lucid reiteration of the constitutional and statutory commitment to equality in public employment. By privileging a vacancy-based rotation over a post-label approach, Justice Vaidya ensures that statutory quotas are realised in practice, not defeated by administrative happenstance or favouritism.

The ruling is more than a personal vindication for Dr. Swati Aggarwal; it is a blueprint for every service where mixed-source recruitment coexists with seniority, promotional avenues, and career progression. Unless overturned, the “Vacancy-Centric Roster Rule” will serve as a controlling precedent within Himachal Pradesh and a persuasive authority elsewhere.