CWP(T) No. 6868 of 2008 07.09.2010 Present: Mr. M. R. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Record perused. 2. Petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Technician Grade-I in the year 1999 by the Departmental Promotion Committee and was found to be unfit. Petitioner made a grievance about the same and he was duly informed about this fact. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not considered at all. It is also not the case of the respondents that petitioner was not considered due to pendency of any disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. Thus it cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the judgment dated 8.3.2010, passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP(T) No. 4946 of 2008, titled as Ajanta Sewak versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, copy of which is taken on record. I have perused the same. The ratio is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In Ajanta Sewak (supra) petitioner had been imposed with a penalty of censure and when he approached the Court, the respondents took a plea that his overall work was not satisfactory. The Court found that nothing had been placed on record to show as to in what manner his work was not satisfactory. The facts in the instant case are different. In the present case the D.P.C., who are best suited to make assessment of the candidates most suited for the job, have considered the petitioner’s case and found him to be unfit. Relevant -2- and complete material has been considered of all the eligible persons. Consequently the ratio of law laid in Ajanta Sewak (supra) does not apply. 4. Present petition without any merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 7, 2010 (PK)