DHIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent -department on 1.11.1981. He was given the senior scale with effect from 1.7.1985. The next promotion from the post of Cierk is either Senior Assistant or Extension Officer (Industries). The Clerks are required to give option either for the post of Senior Assistant or Extension Officer (Industries). Howevor, in the case of Senior Assistant, a Clerk with three years service is eligible for promotion whereas for the post of Extension Officer (Industries), minimum service required as a Clerk is ten years. In the year 1989, the Director (Industries) sought option from the petitioner regarding his promotion. He opted for being promoted as Senior Assistant. Respondents No. 3 and 4 opted for promotion to the post of Extension Officer (Industries) in the year 1988 and 1986, respectively. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant (now re - designated as Senior Assistant) on 7.7.1990. His promotion was cancelled on 1.10.1992 (Annexure A -2). Respondents No. 3 and 4 were promoted to the post of Senior Assistants on 1.10.1992 itself.

(2.) MR . D.P. Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the action of respondents No. 1 and 2 of conceding the promotion of the petitioner vide letter dated 1.10.1992 and promoting respondents No. 3 and 4 on the same date was arbitrary. He then contended that his client has given option in the year 1989 for being considered to the post of Senior Assistant. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have given option for being considered to the post Extension Officer. According to him the option of respondents No. 3 and 4 was irrevocable. He lastly contended that the respondents No. 3 and 4 could not give option retrospectively after the petitioner stood promoted on 7.7.1990.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.