IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 7547 of 2008, Decided on: 02.06.2009. Chet Ram. .… … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another .… … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? No.1 For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner was in feeder category to the post of Assistant as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules called the “Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Department Class-III (Ministerial) Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Services) Rules, 1973.” However, vide amendment carried out on 21.9.1983, the category to which the petitioner belongs was deleted from the feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant. The petitioner made several representations against the amendment carried out on 21.9.1983. The case of the Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - petitioner was repeatedly recommended by the Director of Horticulture. The earlier recommendation is dated 23.12.1983 (Page-41). However, the fact of the matter is that the case of the petitioner remained under consideration. The petitioner was also constrained to serve a legal notice upon the Secretary (Horticulture). It appears from the record that the case of the petitioner was taken up by the Director of Horticulture with the State Government on 16.11.2000 and 19.12.2000. However, the same were rejected as is evident from Annexure P-A, dated 2.2.2001. A bare perusal of Annexure P-A reveals that the same is not a speaking order. The petitioner has been visited with civil consequences. The decision should have been self-contained, speaking and reasoned. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Annexure P-A dated 2.2.2001 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner afresh by a speaking order. The respondents while considering the case of the petitioner will also take into consideration that there are no promotional avenues available to the petitioner’s category. The decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 2, 2009. (rkv) - 3 - - 4 -