Shimla, Oct. 28 -- The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday quashed the six-month service extension granted to public works department (PWD) engineer-in-chief Narinder Pal Singh, directing him to relinquish charge immediately and ordering the state government to complete the stalled selection process for the post by November 11. Allowing a petition filed by chief engineer Narinder Paul Singh Chauhan, a division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma declared the extension notification dated April 28, 2026, "illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio". The court directed the state to revive and conclude the proceedings of the Screening/Selection Committee initiated in April for filling the post of engineer-in-chief. It further ordered that if Chauhan is found suitable and recommended for promotion, he must be promoted retrospectively from May 1, 2026, with all consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation and monetary arrears. Regarding the government's justification for retaining retiring officials, the bench held: "Public interest is not a magic word, user of which itself discloses the public interest which was or is warranted for the impugned action of the respondent-state." The court noted that the state had failed to produce any evidence demonstrating the public interest that necessitated the extension or establishing that no suitable successor was available. The department of personnel had initiated the process to fill the engineer-in-chief's post ahead of Narinder Pal Singh's scheduled retirement on April 30. The screening committee was constituted, eligible chief engineers were identified and a memorandum for consideration of their promotion was prepared. The committee meeting was scheduled for April 9 but could not take place because the secretary (personnel) was away on tour. The file was subsequently placed before the chief secretary to fix another date. On April 22, the chief secretary recorded the note "Please speak". Meanwhile, a separate process was initiated following communication from the chief minister's office conveying approval for a six-month extension. The extension was approved on April 28, and the promotion proceedings were subsequently closed on the ground that no vacancy remained available. Examining this sequence, the bench observed that the promotion file had been deferred while a parallel process for extending the incumbent's service was pursued. The HC pointed out that under the rules governing extension of service and re-employment beyond superannuation, extensions must be justified by public interest and satisfy at least one of two conditions: either other officers are not sufficiently prepared to take over the job, or the retiring officer possesses outstanding merit. The court found that neither condition had been established in this case. The incumbent had argued that several ongoing priority projects required continuity in supervision and that his continued service was necessary in the public interest. However, the bench noted that the state had not substantiated this justification in its reply. The arguments concerning ongoing projects appeared in the incumbent's own response rather than in the government's case supporting the extension....