IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5113 of 2008 Date of decision: 08.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Laiq Ram & others. .....Petitioners. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 to 5. None for respondent No. 6. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(a) and (b): “7(a) That promotions given to respondents No. 3 to 6 may be quashed and set aside. Respondents No. 1 & 2 may be directed to consider the applicants for promotion to the rank of Asstt. Sun Inspector while exercising powers under Rule 13.21 and assess their comparative merit before issuing orders of promotion. (b) Respondents 1 & 2 may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to promotions given to respondents No. 3 to 6 including: (i) The material that weighed with respondent No. 2 while relaxing the provisions of Chapter XIII in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... respect of respondents No. 3 to 6; (ii) The reasons that weighed with respondent No. 2 while granting promotions to respondents 3 to 6; (iii) The reasons for cancellation of promotion given to respondent No. 4 and further reasons which necessitated her promotion again on 22.1.96; (iv) Total number of promotions, alongwith details, made during the last five years under provisions of Rule 13.21.” 2. In reply, on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, the following stand has been taken in preliminary submissions vide paras 2 and 3: “2. That the promotion under Rule 13:21 can not be claimed as a matter of right as there is no malafide on the part of respondents No. 1 and 2. 3. That the applicant No. 16 has also been given promotion under the provisions of P.P.R. 13:21 which fact has been suppressed. The applicant have not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Replies on behalf of respondents No. 3, 4 and 6 are akin to that of respondents No. 1 and 2. 4. In view of the above replies, in case the petitioners still have any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, they may certainly point out the same by way of appropriate representation before the first respondent within a period of one month from today alongwith copy of this judgment and the said respondent shall decide the same within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the private respondents No. 3 to 6, if so desired, who shall be free to submit additional material in support of their respective contentions, if so advised. ...3... 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 8th December, 2010 (virender)