IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 4080 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.07.2010 ______________________________________________________ Dr. Shekhar Semwal .....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Keshav Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. ______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner is working as an Ayurvedic Medical Officer, in the Directorate of Ayurveda, under the Director, Ayurveda. He was due for promotion in April, 2008, when a DPC was held jfor promoting Ayurvedic Medical Officers, to the post of Sub Divisional Ayurvedic Medical Officers. He, however, gave, in writing, that on account of his poor health, his name be not considered for promotion. Consequently, his name was not considered. Some persons, junior to him, were promoted. Again, DPC was held on 30th December, 2008, because, by then, some more posts of Sub Divisional Ayurvedic Medical Officers had fallen vacant. This time, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -: 2 :- petitioner’s name was also considered, but he was found ineligible, on account of his having not passed the departmental examination. One more DPC was held on 3rd September, 2009 and the petitioner was again not considered for promotion, because of his having not passed the departmental examination. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the DPC, held on 7th April, 2008, when petitioner made a request for his name being not considered on account of health problem, persons, junior to him, had been promoted and some of those persons had also not passed the departmental examination. His contention is that when persons, junior to the petitioner, had been promoted on the basis of DPC, held in April, 2008, despite the fact that they had not cleared the departmental examination, petitioner, who was senior to those persons, ought not to have been denied the right of promotion, on the ground that he had not passed the departmental examination. 4. In April, 2008, Rules did not provide for passing of departmental examination, as a condition precedent for promotion. It was after the DPC of April, 2008 and prior to the DPC of December, 2008, that amendment was carried out in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and clearance of departmental examination was made a condition for promotion. So, the contention is rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, now, petitioner has passed the departmental examination and some posts of Sub Divisional Ayurvedic Medical Officers are also lying vacant, but Departmental Promotion Committee meeting is not being -: 3 :- convened. He submits that the petitioner is going to retire in September, this year and that he deserves to be considered for promotion, before his retirement. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission, writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No. 1 to hold a meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee, in case some vacancies are available and to consider the name of petitioner, in case he falls in the zone of choice and to consider him for promotion, if he has passed the departmental examination. This exercise be completed before his retirement, so that, in case, he is eligible for promotion, he may get the same before retirement. This direction has been issued in line with the latest judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled Union of India and another versus Hem Raj Singh Chauhan and others, (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 290, per which an employee has a right to be considered for promotion, without any delay, if posts are available. (Surjit Singh) Judge 22nd July, 2010 (rajni)