IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2164 of 2008. Decided on: 03.03.2009. Shri Shakti Chand Thakur. … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Another. … … 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 counsel for the petitioner. For the Respondents: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The post of Senior Internal Auditor had fallen vacant with effect from 31st July, 1976 due to promotion of Mr. Madan Paul Singh, a Senior Internal Auditor who was promoted to the post of Superintendent. The case of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Internal Auditor due to adverse entries recorded in his A.C.Rs. for the relevant period. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Internal Auditor with effect Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - from 6th September, 1978 and was confirmed as such vide office order dated 28.2.1987. The respondent/State had created the post of Superintendent Grade-III on 1st August, 1986. The respondent No.2 has recommend the case of the petitioner for ad hoc promotion as Superintendent Grade-III, however, the Public Service Commission had raised certain objections and consequently, one Shri Bansi Lal Sharma was promoted on ad hoc basis as Superintendent Grade-III vide order dated 28th February, 1987. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules were notified on 2nd January, 1988. The posts of Senior Internal Auditor/Assistant/Senior Scale Stenographer were placed in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-III. Thereafter the case of the petitioner was considered by the regularly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee and he was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-III on 10th October, 1988. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is discriminated against in any manner by the respondents. He was earlier considered for promotion to the post of Senior Internal Auditor in accordance with law on 6th September, 1978 and thereafter he was considered and promoted as Superintendent Grade-III on 10th October, 1988. The ad hoc promotion of Bansi Lal Sharma in the present case till the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were framed after the creation of vacancy on 1st August, 1986 cannot be termed as illegal or contrary to law. The petitioner could not be considered for promotion on ad hoc basis due to objections raised by the H.P. Public Service Commission. - 3 - In these circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. March 03, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.