IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 12116 of 2008. Decided on: May 27, 2011. Rajinder Kumar …Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Dhruv Shaunak, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. J.S.Guleria, Asstt. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner is working as Class IV employee, in the Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh. Recruitment and Promotion Rules, pertaining to Forest Guards, copy Annexure R-1, provide for promotion of Class IV employees of Forest Department to the posts of Forest Guards, to the extent of 10% cadre posts. Rules provide that Class IV employees, with ten years regular service, are eligible for promotion. Promotion is to be made, on the basis of result of written test, as per Rules. 2. Some posts of Forest Guards were vacant, which were required to be filled from Class IV employees, in accordance with the aforesaid Rule. Petitioner also applied for Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - promotion and taking the test. He failed in the test. Two persons junior to him, however, passed the test. They were appointed. Petitioner’s grievance is that when his juniors have been appointed, he should have also been appointed. He made a representation, which was forwarded by the Deputy Conservator of Forests to the Conservator of Forests, Wild Life (South), Shimla, for sympathetic consideration, vide Annexure A-5. Petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to the respondents for appointing him as Forest Guard, against 10% promotion quota for class IV. 3. In reply, it is stated that petitioner, having not qualified the test, was not considered for promotion. Also, it is stated that two persons, allegedly junior to the petitioner, who have been promoted, are in fact not from the same circle as the petitioner. They are stated to be from a different circle. Cadres of Class IV are alleged to be circle based and, thus, the allegedly junior persons, who have been promoted, cannot be said to be junior or senior to the petitioner, as the petitioner and those two persons belong to different cadres. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not qualify the test, conducted for promotion of Class IV employees to the posts of Forest Guards. Rules provide that Class IV employees are to be promoted, only if they qualify the test. - 3 - Petitioner, having failed in the test, has no right to be promoted. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. May 27, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.