RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief vide para 7(1):

(2.) IN the reply filed on behalf of the official respondents No. 1 and 2, the following stand has been taken in para 6(3) and (8):

(3.) IT appears that in the substantive cadre of Assistant District Attorney, respondents No. 3 to 8 were senior to the petitioner. However, for the reasons best known to the department, the petitioner alongwith his two immediate seniors, namely the aforesaid respondents No. 7, Shri Ravinder Kumar and 8, Shri Lobhi Ram, were promoted as Assistant Deputy Attorney purely on temporary basis vide Notification dated 19th January, 1996, Annexure A3. However, it further appears that when the regular process for promotion was undertaken, the private respondents No. 3 to 8, who also include the said Shri Ravinder Kumar and Shri Lobhi Ram (respondents No. 7 and 8 herein) were promoted on officiation basis vide Notification dated 1st March, 1997, Annexure A1, taking into consideration the available vacancy position as existing at that time. In that process, the petitioner was left out, may be for the reason that he was junior to the private respondents No. 3 to 8. In such circumstances, to my mind, he cannot have any legally enforceable grievance and more so when his promotion as Deputy District Attorney vide Notification dated 19th January, 1996, Annexure A3, was purely on temporary basis without any right for continuance/promotion/seniority etc. in the cadre of Deputy District Attorneys.