IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1854 of 2008. Decided on : 9.3.2011. Rattan Chand …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Abheyendra Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 5th September, 2007 whereby the promotion order of the petitioner issued on 7.7.2007 was withdrawn. 2. The undisputed facts are that on 7.7.2007 an office order was passed whereby the petitioner shown as Rattan Chand- III son of Sh. Surjan Lal Singh was promoted from the post of Helper (Class-IV) to the post of Pump Operator (Class-III). The impugned order was issued on 5th September, 2007 and the order promoting the petitioner was withdrawn on 7.7.2007. The petitioner filed this petition and the main contention of the petitioner is that the rules of natural justice have not been followed and no 2 opportunity was given to the petitioner before withdrawing the order. 3. There is no doubt, that normally before withdrawing an order of promotion and canceling the order of promotion, the State is bound to issue a notice to the employee. The rules of natural justice have to be read into every administrative or quasi judicial action of the State. No doubt, this rule was not followed, but from the reply filed by the State it is apparent that the initial promotion order was issued totally by mistake. The stand of the State is that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held a meeting on 4.7.2007 to fill up 10 posts of Pump Operators. The feeder category is that of helpers to which the petitioner admittedly belonged at the relevant time. The DPC considered the persons only upto Sr. No. 68 and the name of the petitioner was not even considered since his name was figured at Sr. No. 71 of the seniority list. The seniority list has been annexed with the reply. Therefore, the petitioner was not within the zone of consideration. 4. According to the State, the names of some other Rattan Chand was recommended for promotion by the DPC and by mistake the name of the petitioner who was also Rattan Chand was also included in the promotion order which was passed finally and therefore such order was withdrawn at a later stage. Normally where the rules of 3 natural justice have not been followed, this Court would have remanded the case to the authorities to have given opportunity to the employee to put-forth his case. In the present case though the reply was filed as far back as on 17.11.2008 and the petitioner was given opportunity to file rejoinder on 13th October, 2008, the petitioner did not file any rejoinder to controvert the stand of the State which therefore is virtually admitted. No purpose will be served in remanding the case back because the end result is bound to be the same. Therefore, the petition is rejected. No costs. 9th March, 2011. (Deepak Gupta) (Krn Guleria) Judge.