IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 4880 of 2008. Decided on: 1st December, 2010. Onkar Dutt Bhardwaj. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. … .. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: (i) That column 11 of the R&P Rules at Annexure A-6 may kindly be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the promotion granted to respondents No.3 and 4 against the post of Research Assistant vide order dated 26.11.97 (Annexure A-1) may also be quashed and set aside. (ii) That respondents may be directed to consider the claim of applicant for promotion to the post of Research Assistant w.e.f. the same date from which it has been granted to respondents No.3&4 with all consequential benefits. (iii) That if during the pendency of Original Application the respondents No.3 & 4 are considered for further promotion(s) as a result of their promotion 2 pursuant to impugned promotion order, in that event, the applicant may also be considered for such benefit(s) with all consequential benefits.” 2. It is seen from the reply filed by the government that issue regarding the omission of the feeder category represented by the petitioner is under consideration by the Government since the same feeder category was available in the R&P Rules till the issuance of the new Rules. There will be a direction to the first respondent to take a final decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the first respondent. Depending on the action thus taken by the Government, the consequential action, if any required will be taken by the second respondent within another two months. We make it clear that in view of the judgment, as above, the contentions regarding the challenge on the vires of the Rules are left open. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 1st December, 2010 ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr) Judge.