IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 6694 of 2008. Decided on: 06.07.2010. __________________________________________________________ Parkash Chand Gupta. … 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. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 to 6. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, is that he has not been considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I from the feeder category of Superintendent Grade-II in the year 1999. The precise case of the respondent-State is that his case could not be considered in view of Annexure P-2 dated 8th August, 1996. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has preferred an appeal against office order dated 8th August, 1996. The same has been rejected by the Joint Secretary (Health) on 2nd May, 1997 without a speaking order. Once a representation has been made, the same is required to be decided on the basis of pleas/grounds raised against the adverse entry. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. Memo dated 2nd May, 1997 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner against entry dated 8th August, 1996 afresh by a speaking order. In case the entry is set aside, the petitioner shall be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I in accordance with law. The needful be done within a period of six weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 06, 2010. (sck).