IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.2511 /2008 Decided on:11.5.2009 S.P.Sood. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. For the petitioner : Mr.D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate vice Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate for respondent No.1. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) The precise case of the petitioner is that he ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 1989 instead April, 1995. The case of the respondent-Board, in nutshell, is that the post of Executive Engineer is a selection post. The Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 24.11.1989 to consider the eligible candidates for regular promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer from the post of Assistant Engineer. The case of the petitioner, as per the reply, was duly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 24.11.1989, but his name was not 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of merit. There is no question of supersession when the post in question is a selection post. The question of supersession is only relevant when the post is non-selection. The case of the petitioner was subsequently considered by another Class-I Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 16.1.1995. The petitioner was found suitable and was promoted regularly as per Annexure A-7 dated 19.4.1995. Since the petitioner could not be found suitable for promotion on the basis of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 24.11.1989, he cannot seek promotion with effect from 1989. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 11.5. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*