IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C. Rev.(T) No.: 25 of 2008. Decided on: 29.10.2010. __________________________________________________________ Dr. Sat Pal Bansal. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner. In view of this, the petitioner had the only right to be considered as per fitness and suitability for the post in question. 2. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the suitability of the petitioner has been considered by the duly constituted Committee and was not found fit for promotion to the post in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - question. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. October 29, 2010. (sck).