IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4706 of 2008. Decided on: 05.03.2010. __________________________________________________________ Bhim Singh Thakur. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner joined as Vaccinator in the year 1965. He was designated as Male Health Worker in the year 1980. The State has framed Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Health Educator. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that the respondents are not promoting him to the post of Health Educator. The case of the respondent-State, in nutshell, is that the post of Male Health Worker is not the feeder category for promotion to the post of Health Educator. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. Admittedly, the post of Male Health Worker is not the feeder category for promotion to the post of Health Educator. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondents have been promoting the Male Health Workers after imparting six months’ training to them to the post of Health Educator. The educational qualification prescribed for promotional training of Male Health Supervisors/Male Health Workers is that a candidate should actually possess matriculation qualification with Science. The petitioner does not fulfill this essential qualification. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the petitioner has no right to be considered for promotion to the post of Health Educator. A person, who is to be considered for promotion his category must find mention in the feeder category or must possess the essential qualification if another mode of promotion is prescribed. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 05, 2010. (sck).