IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 2666 of 2008 (OA No. 1733 of 1995) Date of decision: 26.5.2010 Mangat Ram Rana ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral). The prayer made in the petition is for quashing of notification dated 18.8.1995 Annexure A-2 vide which respondent No.4 was promoted as Superintendent Grade-I (Class-II Gazetted). The case of the petitioner is that petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were Superintendent Grade1I but petitioner was senior to respondent No.4. In fact, the petitioner was at serial No.7 and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… respondent No.4 at serial No.8 in the seniority list Annexure A-1. 2. It has been submitted that Superintendent Grade-I is a non-selection post and promotion from Superintendent Grade-II to Superintendent Grade-I is to be made purely on the basis of seniority. The respondents have erred in ignoring the seniority of the petitioner while promoting respondent No.4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that now petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have retired. 3. The defence of respondents No.1 to 3 is that the case of the petitioner alongwith respondent No.4 was considered for promotion from the post of Superintendent Grade-II to Superintendent Grade-I. The petitioner was no doubt senior to respondent No.4, but he was not found fit for promotion in view of his service record. The stand of respondents No.1 to 3 is that petitioner was penalized in disciplinary proceedings relating to financial irregularities and misbehaviour with superiors which was initiated against him in the year 1988 and penalty of withholding of two increments was imposed on petitioner. An entry to this effect was also made in the Annual Confidential Reports of the official for the year 1989-90 which was conveyed to him but was not expunged by the appellate authorities. 4. The petitioner was not found fit by DPC for promotion. The petitioner had filed OA No.403/92 regarding expunction of adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Reports for the year 1989-90. The erstwhile Tribunal ordered that the petitioner be heard and decision conveyed to him. The petitioner was issued notice for …3… personal hearing on 19.6.1992 but the petitioner did not turn up and his application was rejected vide Annexure RA. The post of Superintendent Grade-I is Class-II Gazetted and is to be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit subject to fitness. 5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder but has not controverted the stand of respondents No.1 to 3 that post of Superintendent Grade-I is Class-II Gazetted post and is to be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit subject to fitness. The DPC has rejected the case of the petitioner because he was not fit for promotion on the basis of his service record. The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have retired. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. May 26, 2010 ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.