A single-judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that the delegation of Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) powers in government schools may be validly based on finalized seniority lists. The judgment upholds departmental discretion to rescind such delegation from a junior in favour of a senior, so long as the underlying seniority positions are correctly reflected. The decision affirms existing practice and is binding on subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh, providing clear precedent in education service law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/14947/2025 of SURENDER SINGH PUNDEER Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010572932025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether DDO powers in government schools can be validly withdrawn from a junior lecturer and delegated in favour of a senior, as per finalized seniority lists. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court found no illegality in the withdrawal of DDO powers from the petitioner (a junior lecturer) and their delegation to respondent No.5 (a senior lecturer), as per the finalized seniority list dated 11.04.2023. The record established the seniority of respondent No.5 over the petitioner, and the government’s actions in issuing and withdrawing the relevant orders were upheld as proper and grounded in undisputed seniority data. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | No specific prior judgments cited or relied upon in the reasoning. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The finalized seniority list as communicated by order dated 11.04.2023, as well as departmental records, formed the basis for the decision. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner’s DDO delegation order dated 18.08.2025 was withdrawn a day later and re-delegated to a senior (respondent No.5). The finalized 2023 seniority list demonstrated that respondent No.5 was senior to the petitioner. The petition challenged only the legality of this withdrawal and redelegation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | High Courts in other States; provides guidance on administrative reliance on finalized seniority lists. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court reaffirms that government authorities are entitled to withdraw DDO powers from a junior appointee and redelegate them to a senior, when the finalized seniority list so warrants.
- Challenges to such administrative orders will not succeed where the record unambiguously demonstrates the seniority of the successor over the displaced officer.
- Seniority lists, once finalized and updated as per court directions and representation processes, serve as conclusive evidence for administrative delegation decisions.
- No element of illegality or unfairness exists where orders are founded strictly on established seniority.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of DDO powers from himself and their grant to respondent No.5, asserting that the respondent was junior.
- The respondent and State produced a finalized seniority list, circulated via communication dated 11.04.2023, which placed respondent No.5 as senior to the petitioner.
- The court carefully examined the seniority entries: the petitioner at Sr. No. 8719 / 7504(A) and respondent No.5 at Sr. No. 8418 / 7339, confirming respondent No.5’s seniority.
- On these facts, no illegality or arbitrariness was found in the government’s administrative withdrawal and redelegation of DDO powers.
- The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, upholding departmental compliance with the finalized seniority list.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that DDO powers, once delegated to him, could not lawfully be rescinded in favour of a person (respondent No.5) alleged to be junior.
Respondent (State and Respondent No.5)
- Produced the finalized seniority list demonstrating respondent No.5’s seniority over the petitioner.
- Asserted that the withdrawal and redelegation of DDO powers correctly reflected this seniority and followed all statutory and procedural requirements.
Factual Background
The petitioner was initially delegated DDO powers of Government Senior Secondary School, Nohradhar, via order dated 18.08.2025. The very next day, this delegation was rescinded, and DDO powers were assigned to respondent No.5. According to the seniority list updated and circulated in April 2023, respondent No.5 was senior to the petitioner. The petitioner sought to challenge the rescinding of his DDO delegation solely on the ground of seniority.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment is grounded in administrative law principles and the application of finalized seniority lists for service matters.
- The finalized seniority list (Annexure R-5/2, circulated 11.04.2023) was treated as conclusive by the court for determination of questions of seniority as it applies to delegation of DDO powers.
- No specific statutory provision is interpreted or “read down”; the focus is entirely on the procedural correctness in accordance with the finalized seniority documentation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms established legal principles regarding reliance on finalized seniority lists for administrative decisions.