IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5499/2008 Reserved on: 5.5.2011 Decided on:13.5.2011 _____________________________________________ Dr. Baldev Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. J.P. Upadhaya, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari on 1.9.1990. He obtained his M.D. Degree in the year 1990. He was transferred to the post of Lecturer vide notification dated 20.10.1997 from Kakkar to Rajiv Gandhi Government Ayurvedic College, Paprola. He joined his duties on 10.9.1997. 2. Mr. J.P. Upadhaya has strenuously argued that his client was entitled to get benefits under F.R. 22 (c). He has also argued that the post of Lecturer was higher vis-à-vis the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari and his client should be deemed to be regularly promoted to the post of Lecturer on the basis of his post-graduation degree, which his client obtained in the year 1990. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been appointed by way of transfer strictly as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 26.5.1997. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Respondent-State was also directed to file supplementary affidavit whether the petitioner had been appointed as Lecturer on the basis of transfer or promotion. Supplementary affidavit has been filed. According to the contents of the supplementary affidavit, petitioner had been appointed by way of transfer. 6. Mr. J.P. Upadhaya has drawn the attention of the Court to para 6 (e) of the petition. According to him, the post of Lecturer was to be filled up 100% by promotion from amongst Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Demonstrators with at least two years regular and/or ad hoc (rendered upto 31.12.1983) service as such. In other words, his submission is that his client had been promoted on the basis of Annexure ‘A’ dated 20.10.1997. Respondent-State has placed on record 3 copy of Recruitment and Promotion Rules called “the Himachal Pradesh (Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homoeopathy Lecturer, Class-II Gazetted) Recruitment and promotion Rules, 1997” notified on 26.5.1997. A bare perusal of rule 11 makes it abundantly clear that the post of Lecturer is to be filled up by way of transfer from amongst Ayurvedic Chiktisa Adhikaries having rendered 3 years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc (rendered upto 31.3.1991) service in the grade failing which by direct recruitment. It is thus evident that the post of Lecturer is to be filled up according to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules by way of transfer and not by way of promotion, as argued by Mr. J.P. Upadhaya. It has also come in the reply that the posts of Lecturer and Ayurvedic Chiktisa Adhikari carry the same pay scale. In view of this, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. J.P. Upadhaya that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer on the basis of Annexure ‘A’ dated 20.10.1997 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 13.5. 2011 *awasthi*