IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 55 of 2009 Decided on: 18.10.2010 Sunil Chand Katoch …Petitioner Versus Vijay Singh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner. : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : In sequel to order dated 6th April, 2010, Major Narender Dubey is present in person. He has produced the records of proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee in a sealed cover. 2. I have perused the records of the proceedings. The petitioner has secured 80.73 marks and five persons have secured more marks than the petitioner. There were two vacancies in 2003 and one vacancy in 2004. 3. Consequently, the present petition is rendered 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- infructuous and the same is dismissed as infructuous. 4. However, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner to assail the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee by way of appro priate petition before an appropriate Forum. The liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to assail the action of the respondents, whereby he has not been granted interest on the delayed payment(s). The Registry is directed to seal the proceedings and hand over the same to Major Narender Dubey during the course of day-today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge October 18, 2010 (K. Attri)