1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 24 of 2010. Judgment reserved on : 28.6.2010 Decided on: 7.7. 2010. State of H.P. and another …..Appellants. Versus Sant Ram Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the appellants : Mr. R.K. Sharma,Senior Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kuldip Singh,J. The judgment dated 21.7.2009 in CWP(T) No.5903/2008 has been assailed in this appeal. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has held that respondent shall be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger with effect from the date Pritam Chand was promoted on 18.7.1977 notionally and on temporary basis. The period from 18.7.1977 shall be counted for the purpose of seniority for all intents and purposes except the arrears of salary. 2. The grievance raised by the respondent in the petition was that he was appointed as Forest Guard on 1.11.1965. He was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in the year 1976. He was placed at serial No.40 in the select list, but was not promoted to the post of 2 Deputy Ranger. In the year 1979 again DPC was held and the petitioner was placed at serial No.26 in the select list. The respondent was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger in the year 1997. One Pritam Chand who was placed at serial No.37 in the seniority list was not possessing the essential qualification i.e. matriculation but he was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger and the respondent was left out. The representation of the petitioner was rejected without assigning reasons on 26.8.1999. One Hukam Singh Forest Guard also made a representation on 12.12.1994 seeking promotion w.e.f. 1979 as Deputy Ranger which was accepted by competent authority i.e. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 17.6.1995 and Hukam Singh was appointed as Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 28.2.1979 notionally and on temporary basis. 3. The stand of the appellant is that petitioner could not be promoted to rake up stale claim. Pritam Chand was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger on the basis of information supplied by the field agencies. As per CCF letter dated 10.9.1976 the Forest Guards with minimum qualification of matriculation and below 35 years in age were eligible for promotion to the post of Forester ( Now Deputy Ranger) and 50% of the total number of vacant posts of Foresters were to be filled up from amongst the eligible forest Guards as per CCF letter dated 21.9.1976. Pritam Chand, forest Guard was at serial No.37 and respondent was at serial No.40 of the select list. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has reiterated the stand of the appellant which has been taken in the reply. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. 3 5. The process for recruitment of Deputy Ranger and Foresters was started on 10.9.1976 vide Annexure R-1 placed on the writ petition file. According to letter dated 10.9.1976, 50% of the vacant posts were to be filled up by selection of suitable Forest Guards who were Matriculate and below 35 years in age. The grievance of the respondent is that he was considered for the promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger for Dharamshala circle and was placed at serial No.40 in the select list. The candidates upto serial No.39 were given promotion and respondent was ignored. One Pritam Chand who was at serial No.37 possessing Higher Secondary (Core subject) qualification was not eligible for promotion but still he was given promotion and the respondent was ignored. Pritam Chand was shown to have Higher Secondary (Part-I) qualification and not Higher Secondary (Core) qualification. Pritam Chand was wrongly treated eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger. The petitioner had made representation dated 1.1.1996 Annexure A-5. The representation of the respondent was rejected vide communication dated 26.8.1998 Annexure A-8, placed on the writ file. It is also the case of the respondent that vide communication dated 5.8.1995 Annexure A-7 received from the Secretary, H.P. School Education Board, it is clear that the students who have done Higher Secondary (Core) Examination from Punjab University without passing in the subjects of English and Math, before 1965, they have to pass English and Math subjects either on regular basis or as a private candidate for the purpose of higher education and thereafter only the said examination will be at par to regular Matriculation. 6. The further case of the respondent is that in the select list Annexure R-3 he was placed at serial No.40 and Pritam Chand at 4 serial No.37. In Annexure R-5 dated 2.9.1976 the educational qualification of Pritam Chand has been shown Higher Secondary (Core) whereas educational qualification of respondent is shown Higher Secondary. Pritam Chand was not eligible for promotion as Higher Secondary (Core) is not equivalent to matriculation in view of clarification given by Secretary, H.P. School Education Board in communication dated 5.8.1995 but still Pritam Chand was promoted ignoring respondent who was in the select list and was eligible for promotion. Sandyha Dass who was at serial No.39 was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger. Pritam Chand was not eligible for promotion for want of requisite qualification, therefore, respondent who was at serial No.40 was entitled to promotion in place of Pritam Chand but he was wrongly ignored. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know only in the year 1995 that Pritam Chand was not entitled for promotion. He made representation which was rejected vide communication dated 26.8.1998 Annexure A-8. The case of Hukam Chand was similar who was wrongly overlooked for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger in the year 1979. He made representation in the year 1994 and his representation was accepted and was promoted as Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 28.9.1979. The representation of petitioner was wrongly rejected. It is clear that Pritam Chand who was not eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger was placed at serial No.40. Pritam Chand could not have been promoted but he was promoted as Deputy Ranger. The respondent who was fully eligible for promotion as Deputy Ranger was wrongly deprived promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger. The learned Single Judge has considered the entire factual matrix of the case in detail in the impugned judgment. The 5 appellants have failed to make out a case for interference. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications. No costs. ( Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. ( Kuldip Singh), Judge. July, 07, 2010 (sks) 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 24 of 2010 Judgment reserved on 28.6.2010 Date of decision: 7.07.2010 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. and another …..Appellants. Versus Sant Ram Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Judgment for consideration, please. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge. I agree/do not agree. ( Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. List for pronouncement of judgment on__________. ( Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. Court Secretary