ASHOK KUMAR Vs. ADMINISTRATOR HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court hol- ding that no right of the petitioner had been violated and that the writ petition filed by him deserved to be dismissed.

(2.) . Briefly stated the facts of the ca?e are that on 15th February, 1957, the petitioner Joined servica in the office of the inspector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh as a junior clerk. On 1st of June, 1959, he was confirmed in that post. In August 1963 a vacancy of senior clerk arose in the office and the petitioner even though he continusd to hold the post of the junior clerk was assigned the duties of the senior clerk. On 1st of June 1964, however, on the recommendation of the Deparmental Promotion Committee, he was promoted to officiate as asenior clerk with effect from August, 1963, in the same office.

(3.) It appears that at this very time when the petitioner was appointed as a senior clerk, respondent No. 4, Shesh Kumar, held the post of a stenotypist in the same office but was on deputation with some other Department and it is not disputed that this substantive post of stenotypist was senior to the post held by the petitioner. Shesh Kumar, therefore, made a representation to the Inspector General of Police against the appointment of the petitioner as a senior clerk in his officiating capacity. This representation was rejected by the lnspector General of Police, but an appeal filed by him before the Lieut. Governor was accepted on the ground that Shesh Kumar even though working as a stenotypist was not considered for promotion to the post of senior clerk and as a consequence the petitioner who was junior to him got his promotion to the higher scale of clerks and therefore Shesh Kumar should be promoted in place of the peritioner from the date the promotion was due to him (vide copy of the order Annexure 'A' filed with the return). This conclusion of the Lieut. Governor was evidently based on the assumption that on 1st June, 1964, when the petitioner was promoted, a stenotypist could be considered for promotion to the post of a senior clerk.