IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 6040 of 2008. Decided on: 9th November, 2010. Oma Rana. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. None for respondents No. 3 and 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that though she is eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, however, regular Departmental and Promotion Committee has not been convened by the respondent-department. It has come in the reply affidavit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 that in fact, the Departmental and Promotion Committee has not finally considered the question of filling the existing vacancy of Senior Assistant. The reply affidavit was filed on 1st October, 1999. Now, we are in 2010. 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to take a final decision with regard to the promotions of petitioner and similar situate persons to the post of Senior Assistant. In the eventuality of the petitioner 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. being found suitable for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant by the Departmental and Promotion Committee, she shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits from the due date. The needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge November 09, 2010. (bhupender)