IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.: 6312 of 2008 Reserved on.: 06.09.2010 Date of decision: 22.9.2010 Raj Kumar Verma … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. Petitioner in person. For the respondent No.1: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- (i) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to promote the applicant as Assistant Consolidation Officer from the date when his junior (Respondent No.2) is promoted and the impugned orders vide annexure PA and PB be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the respondent No.1 may further be directed to give all the consequential benefits to the applicant flowing from the date when his junior (Respondent No.2) is promoted. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were both working with the respondent 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 No.1 in the Directorate of Consolidation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was senior to respondent No.2. On 8.6.1998 the Director Consolidation, H.P. passed an order promoting respondent No.2 as ACO on adhoc basis with immediate effect. This adhoc promotion was ordered on the basis of the departmental promotion Committee meeting held on 2.4.1998. Thereafter, on 22.3.1999 an order was passed whereby respondent No.2 was regularly promoted as ACO w.e.f. 1.10.1998. The petitioner has challenged this order. The stand of the respondent is that as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules only those Kanungos are eligible for promotion to the higher post of Naib Tehsildar/ACO who have passed the Naib Tehsildar examination. The case of the respondent is that when the departmental promotion Committee met on 1.4.1998 the petitioner had not passed the departmental examinational and therefore, was not eligible for promotion. 3. As far as the first order dated 8.6.1998 is concerned there is no error in the same. The petitioner on 8.6.1998 had not qualified the third paper of the Naib Tehsildar examination and as such was not eligible to be promoted. The second order was, however, passed on 22.3.1999. The case of the petitioner is that he cleared the third paper in the month of August, 1998. This fact has also not been disputed by the respondent. Thus in August, 1998 the petitioner was eligible to be considered. The stand of the respondent that the DPC took place in April, 1998 and at 3 that time the petitioner was not eligible cannot be accepted. Eligibility has to be seen on the date when the regular post was available. This post was obviously available only on 1.10.1998 from which date the respondent No.2 was regularly promoted. By that time the petitioner had qualified the third paper of the Naib Tehsildar examination. Therefore, he had a right to be considered for promotion to the post of ACO on 1.10.1998. 4. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed and it is directed to constitute a fresh review DPC and the case of the petitioner shall be considered for promotion on 1.10.1998 and if found suitable the petitioner shall be promoted and given all consequential benefits including monetary benefits and other benefit of further promotion, etc. if available to him. The respondent is directed to hold the review DPC on or before 31st December, 2010. In case the petitioner is found suitable and is promoted then other consequential benefits shall be worked out and the arrears due and payable to him alongwith interest @ 6% per annum be paid to him latest by 30th April, 2011. In case this amount is not paid by 30th April, 2011 the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 22nd September, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.