IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 445 of 2007 Reserved on: 30.5.2011 Date of decision: 3.6.2011 R.K. Tomar …..Petitioner Versus Hon’ble High Court of H.P. & Ors ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J 1. The petitioner, who is a Judicial Officer, by means of this petition has challenged the appointment/promotion of respondents No. 2 and 3 as Civil Judges (Senior Division) prior to him, basically on the ground that these two officers were junior to him. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that since these officers were junior to him and nothing adverse was ever conveyed to the petitioner about the nature and quality of the 2 work he could not have been overlooked while making appointments/promotions to the post of Civil Judge(Senior Division). It is not disputed that the petitioner was senior to respondents No. 2 and 3. The stand of the respondent-High Court is that a Committee of Hon’ble Judges was constituted to consider the records of all the candidates falling within the zone of consideration and on consideration of the records, it was found that in all the ACRs of the petitioner for a period of five years prior to the date of promotion were average and therefore, he was not found fit for promotion. 3. I have gone through the entire record and found that the petitioner has been graded as average and the record of the private respondents for the corresponding period was better than the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that if his average report was to affect his right of promotion, than he should have been conveyed the same. I am afraid there is no merit in this contention. The main reason why the petitioner has been graded average is on account of low disposal of cases. An assessment is made every month about the disposal of cases done by an officer and conveyed to him and quarterly assessment has also been conveyed to the petitioner. In fact, one of the advisories, wherein the petitioner has been asked to improve his disposal, has also been conveyed to him. 4. Promotion is not a matter of right and when the promotion is made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, merit 3 also has to be taken into consideration. The case of the petitioner was considered for promotion alongwith respondents No. 2 and 3 but they were found better in merit and thereafter the Full Court of this High Court accepted the report of the Committee and recommended that respondents No. 2 and 3 be appointed. 5. After perusing the entire record, I am of the considered view that no injustice has been caused to the petitioner. Therefore, I find no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. June 3, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (vt) Judge