IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review No. 100 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.09.2010 Ranjit Singh & others …Review Petitioners. Versus Neelam Kaushal & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 2 to 4: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The main ground raised in this review petition is that in the order of promotion, whereby the review petitioners were promoted on 13th July, 2010, no condition was incorporated that their promotion would be subject to the result of CWP (T) No. 14932 of 2008. 2. In CWP (T) No. 14932 of 2008 on 26th April, 2010, this Court has specifically ordered that any promotion made thereafter would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Merely because the respondent-State neglected to mention this fact in the 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 promotion orders, does not mean that these promotions shall not be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 3. This Court had taken a conscious decision that the judgment would be prospective from 26th April, 2010, the date on which the learned Single Judge had passed an order specifically directing that promotions made thereafter would be subject to the result of the writ petition. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, I see no reason to modify / change the said order. The review petition is, accordingly, rejected. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 20, 2010 (rajni)