IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 302 of 2008. Decided on: 27.04.2011. _____________________________________________________ Madho Ram. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Respondent No.5 already ex-parte. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). Petitioner has assailed order dated 10th December, 2007 passed by the Secretary of the respondent-Board. One Shri Raj Kumar has filed Original Application (M) No.64 of 1995 assailing the promotion of petitioner to the post of Lineman. The original application was directed to be treated as representation. Same was decided in favour of Shri Raj Kumar on 16th December, 1995. Consequently, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Lineman to the post of Assistant Lineman. The petitioner has assailed this decision before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application (M) No.1062 of 1995. The learned 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Tribunal allowed the original application on 11th October, 2007 by quashing the order dated 16th December, 1995 of the respondent- Board. Thereafter, the petitioner and Shri Raj Kumar (respondent No.4 arrayed in Original Application (M) No.1062 of 1995) were heard by the respondent-Board and the representation was decided against the petitioner. It is evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lineman against 2% reservation made available to the Backward Class. The petitioner did not fulfill the condition of income at the time when the certificate of Backward Class was issued to him. In these circumstances, the Secretary of the respondent-Board has held that the appointment of petitioner as Assistant Lineman was bad in law and, thus, he could not be considered for promotion in the year 1995. In these circumstances, the review Departmental Promotion Committee was directed to be held by the Secretary on 10th December, 2007. 2. Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error in order dated 10th December, 2007. 3. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be considered for promotion in accordance with seniority subject to availability of vacancy. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 27, 2011. (sck).