STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. NARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 21.7.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No.2411/2008, directing the appellants to consider the case of respondent No.1 for promotion to the post of Restorer from the date his juniors were promoted i.e. 23.12.1994 with all consequential benefits. It has also been made clear that if the post is not available, it would be open for appellants to create supernumerary post. In case respondents No.2 to 4 have already been regularly promoted during the pendency of the petition then the case of respondent No.1 be considered for promotion to the post of Restorer on regular basis.

(2.) It is the case of the respondent No.1 that office order No.1-12/92 dated 24.12.1994 issued by appellant No.2, promoting juniors of respondent No.1, ignoring respondent No.1, though he was eligible for the post of Restorer is wrong, illegal and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution. The further case of the respondent No.1 is that he was working in the office of appellant No.1 w.e.f. 11.1.1998 and was placed at serial No.5 of the seniority list Annexure A/1. The appellant No.2 had convened DPC and on 24.12.1994 vide Annexure A/2 promoted some persons who were junior to respondent No.1. The juniors of respondent No.1 namely Ashok Kumar, Nand Lal and Parma Nand have been promoted wrongly and illegally.

(3.) The reply was filed by appellants in which preliminary objection has been taken that respondent No.1 did not fulfill the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Restorer in the proposed Recruitment and Promotion Rules which is Matric whereas respondent No.1 is simply middle pass, therefore, respondent No.1 was not promoted. The persons who were promoted have not been impleaded, therefore the petition is not maintainable. On merits, the appellants contested the petition on the ground that respondent No.1 does not fulfill the requirement of the proposed Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Restorer and therefore, respondent No.1 was not promoted.