IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 14593 of 2008 Decided on October 12, 2011. Swatantar Gupta …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners Mrs. Ranjna Parmar, Advocate. For respondents 1 & 2 Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. For respondent No. 3. None. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner had been working as Senior Assistant in the office of Labour Commissioner-cum-Director Employment, in the year 2005, when the Department sought to make promotions to four vacant posts of Superintendent, Grade II. Senior Assistants, working in the aforesaid office, can be considered for promotions to two types of posts, one of Superintendent, Grade II and the other Employment Officer. Government instructions say that where persons, manning a cadre, are eligible for promotions to two or more posts/ cadres, their options are required to be taken before promotions are made. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - 2. Petitioner’s case is that in the year 2006, promotions were made to the posts of Superintendent, Grade II and that he had opted for promotion to such post, vide option exercised in the month of January, 2006, but he was not considered for promotion to the said post and instead, a person junior to him, namely Jas Ram, impleaded as respondent No. 3, was considered and cleared for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee and ultimately appointed, vide order Annexure A-3. Petitioner has sought quashing of promotion order of respondent No. 3 and also issuance of direction to the respondents to consider him for promotion to the post of Superintendent, Grade II, in accordance with option, exercised by him in January, 2006. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that when the process for filling posts of Superintendent, Grade II, by way of promotion, was initiated, options of all concerned, including the petitioner, were sought and the petitioner, vide option dated 22.9.2005, copy Annexure A-2, declined to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent, Grade II and opted for promotion to the post of Employment Officer. It is also the case of the respondents that thereafter, reference had been made to H.P. Public Service Commission and when the matter was pending with that Commission, petitioner changed his option. It is also stated in the reply that since the petitioner changed his option when the matter had already been - 3 - referred to H.P. Public Service Commission, the changed option could not have been considered. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. I find on record a letter, written by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Director Employment to the petitioner on 5.9.2005, informing him that it was proposed to fill four vacant posts of Superintendents, Grade II, so he could exercise his option, whether he wanted to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent, Grade II. In response to that communication, dated 5.9.2005, petitioner exercised his option on 22.9.2005, vide Annexure A-2. As per this option, he declined to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent, Grade II, as he wanted to be considered for promotion to the post of Employment Officer. 6. In view of the aforesaid option, exercised by the petitioner, respondents cannot be blamed for his supersession by respondent No. 3, who was junior to him. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. October 12, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.