The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that withdrawal and reassignment of Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) powers in educational institutions, based on updated seniority lists, is legally valid. The decision upholds existing precedent and is binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction, underscoring the primacy of accurate seniority for such administrative powers in the education sector.
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 Bench – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the delegation and subsequent withdrawal of DDO powers in educational institutions must adhere strictly to the seniority list? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that administrative delegation of DDO powers must be in accordance with the updated and final seniority list. Since the petitioner was junior to the private respondent as reflected in the finalized and communicated seniority records, withdrawal of DDO powers from the petitioner and devolution to the respondent was both legally valid and procedurally correct. No illegality or arbitrariness was found in the State’s actions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Directions and proceedings regarding the finalization and updating of the seniority list as per court directions. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied on the finalized seniority list (as of 31.12.2013, updated and circulated on 11.04.2023 per previous court direction); recognized seniority as primary criterion for DDO power allocation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was initially delegated DDO powers at Government Senior Secondary School, Nohradhar. The State later rescinded this, delegating those powers to another lecturer who was found to be senior as per the updated seniority list. The court confirmed the respondent’s higher seniority and upheld the revised administrative order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the State of Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and administrative tribunals dealing with similar service law/seniority matters |
| Follows | Adheres to established practice of basing administrative powers such as DDO delegation on finalized seniority lists |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that finalized and updated seniority lists, especially those revised upon court direction, are determinative for administrative postings such as DDO delegation in educational institutions.
- Clarifies that administrative orders conferring or withdrawing DDO powers are not illegal if based strictly on seniority, as reflected in duly circulated records.
- Provides binding authority for challenging or defending DDO assignments on the ground of seniority status.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined both the original delegation and the subsequent withdrawal of DDO powers, focusing on whether the administrative action was consistent with the finalized seniority list.
- The seniority list, last updated and circulated on 11.04.2023 as per previous court direction, placed the private respondent higher than the petitioner.
- The State, upon realizing the correct seniority position, withdrew its earlier order and reassigned DDO powers to the rightful senior as per the list.
- The court found no illegality or arbitrariness in this process, emphasizing that adherence to seniority in such delegations is proper and in conformity with law.
- The reasoning centered on the use of duly updated and communicated records for determining such rights, thereby precluding challenges based on earlier, superseded orders.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that DDO powers, once delegated, could not be lawfully withdrawn given that the private respondent is junior to him.
Respondent (State)
- Asserted that the private respondent is senior per the finalized seniority list.
- Argued that the order withdrawing DDO powers from the petitioner and delegating them to the senior respondent was proper and legally valid.
Respondent No. 5 (Private Respondent)
- Submitted that he is in fact senior to the petitioner as per the latest circulated seniority list.
Factual Background
The petitioner was delegated Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) powers at Government Senior Secondary School, Nohradhar by order dated 18.08.2025. Soon thereafter, on realizing that the petitioner was junior, the State withdrew these powers by order dated 19.08.2025, delegating them instead to the private respondent, a senior lecturer as per the finalized and communicated seniority list (updated as of 31.12.2013 and circulated on 11.04.2023). The petitioner challenged this withdrawal, claiming entitlement based on supposed seniority.
Statutory Analysis
The case primarily involved application and interpretation of administrative principles regarding delegation of DDO powers in government educational institutions. The judgment rested on the updated seniority list, circulated as per directions of the court, as the decisive statutory/administrative record, rather than any particular statutory provision.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion was delivered; the matter was heard and decided by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural norms or innovations were set out in the judgment. The decision applied existing administrative and record-keeping practices for determining delegation of powers.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirmed established practice of administrative powers being based on accurate seniority records, with no deviation from existing law.