IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3663 of 2008 Reserved on 22.11.2010 Decided on: 29.11.2010. Smt. Manbhari and others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. Yes For the petitioners : Mr. J.P. Upadhyay, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge The original petitioner Shri Murli Dhar Sharma has died during the pendency of this petition on 10.5.2002 and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 13.7.2009. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the original petitioner was initially appointed as Resin Watcher on 25.8.1958. . He was promoted to the post of Forest Guard w.e.f. 01.04.1961. He had undergone training of Forest Guard at Pinjore w.e.f. 1961-62. He was also sent for Forester's Course in Punjab Forest Training School, Pinjore w.e.f. 01.05.1965 to 28.02.1966. He was issued certificate Annexure 'C'. He was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1966. He made representation to the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Forester w.e.f. 1.10.1962. The representation made by the original petitioner was rejected on 27.10.1967. His appeal was also rejected on 28.01.1969. His subsequent representation was also rejected vide letter dated 16.5.1996. 2. Mr. J.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that since his client (original Petitioner) has passed Forester's Course with Honours, he is entitled to accelerated promotion to the post of Forester. He then contended that a similarly situate person, Devi Singh has been promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger/Forester w.e.f. 1.10.1975 vide letter dated 27.04.1995. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that it is not mentioned in Annexure-C that the original petitioner had passed Forester's Course with “Honours”, thus, he is not entitled to the accelerated promotion. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. The original petitioner had undergone Forester's Course w.e.f. 1.5.1965 to 28.2.1966 in Punjab Forest Training School, Pinjore. He had placed on record certificate issued in his favour vide Annexure- C. However, it is not mentioned in the certificate that he had passed the course with “Honours”. Mr. J.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the notification issued on 1.1.1960, whereby the students with Honours certificates were qualified for accelerated promotions in the department. Since the original petitioner has failed to prove that he had passed the Course -3- with Honours, his case can not be directed to be considered by the respondents for accelerated promotion. 6. The matter is required to be considered from another angle. The original petitioner had passed the Forester's Course, when he was posted in state of Punjab. One similarly situate person Devi Singh was also allocated from the State of Punjab to the State of Himachal Pradesh. He was sent for Forester's Training Course w.e.f. 1.11.1966 to 31.3.1967. It is certified by the Divisional Forest Officer, Research & Training Division, Punjab that Devi Singh stood first with Honours amongst the trainees from Himachal Pradesh. Thus, his case is distinguishable from the case of the original petitioner. If the case of the original petitioner was to be considered for accelerated promotion, he ought to have placed on record the contemporaneous material to establish that he had passed the Course with Honours. The original petitioner made representation to the Divisional Forest Officer, Pinjore on 20.05.1995 for the supply of marks-sheet. He was informed that the records of Forest Guard Training Course for Academic Session 1965-66 were not available, since these were destroyed. He again made representation to the Divisional Forest Officer, Research and Training Division, Pinjore for supply of marks-sheet. 7. However, fact of the matter is that the original petitioner failed to produce the marks-sheet before the court in order to ascertain whether the petitioner had passed the course with Honours or not. The claim that the petitioner stood 4th amongst 38 candidates, -4- as per Annexure -C, will not establish that the he had passed the Course with Honours. 8. Moreover, the present petition is barred by delay and laches, since the original petitioner made representation seeking accelerated promotion to the post of Forester w.e.f. 1962 on 21.08.1967. The same was rejected on 27.10.1967. His appeal was also rejected on 28.01.1969. It is settled law that the representation for seeking promotion and for correction of the seniority list must be filed within reasonable period, i.e. six months to one year. 9. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 29.11. 2010 (K. Attri)