IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. (T) No. 8850 of 2008. Reserved on 10.03.2011. Decided on 18.03.2011. _____________________________________________________ Chinta Devi. …Petitioner. -Versus- H.P. Board of School Education and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Advocate. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. Respondents No. 2 & 3 already ex-parte. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner has assailed the promotions of respondents No. 2 and 3 to the posts of Assistant Secretary, dated 03.07.1997. According to the petitioner, in the seniority list of Section Officers/District Managers, as it stood on 15.06.1996, she was at Sr. No. 6 and respondents No. 2 and 3 were ranked at Sr. Nos. 7 and 9, respectively. According to her, she could not be superseded by respondents No. 2 and 3 to the post of Assistant Secretary. 2. Case of the respondent-Board, in a nut-shell, is that the post of Assistant Secretary is a selection post and the petitioner has not been found suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee, which met on 3rd July, 1997. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 3. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client could not be superseded by respondents No. 2 and 3 being senior to them as per seniority list dated 15.06.1996. 4. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has supported the issuance of Annexure P-2. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. It will be apt at this stage to refer to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed by the respondent-Board for the post of Assistant Secretary. As per Rule-5, the post of Assistant Secretary is a selection post. The criteria for filling up the post by way of selection is merit. The question of supersession comes only when the post in question is a non-selection post. Though the petitioner is senior to respondents No. 2 and 3, however, the merit of the petitioner has been adjudged vis-à-vis respondents No. 2 and 3 on the basis of A.C.Rs. recorded for the years 1991-1992, 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996. Petitioner has not alleged any malafides against the members of the Departmental Promotion Committee. This Court will not sit in appeal over the recommendations made by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. Moreover, it is settled law that when the post is a selection post, then the employee has no right of promotion on the basis of seniority alone. Petitioner has also been promoted on adhoc basis to the post of Assistant Secretary on 09.12.1998. - 3 - 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 18, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - `