IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7342 of 2008 Decided on: 2.12.2010 Trilok Chand …Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner : None. For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he has been wrongly overlooked by the respondent-Corporation for promotion. 2. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation has vehemently argued that in fact, the case of the petitioner was considered by the duly constituted Selection Committee. However, on the basis of his ACRs, he was superseded by the persons, who have earned better remarks in ACRs. However, fact of the matter is that the petitioner has made representation for redressal of his grievances, but the same has been rejected by the Regional Manager, HRTC Kullu vide Annexure-PD, dated 16.2.2001, without passing a speaking order. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- 3. The Court is of the considered view that the representation made by the petitioner ought to have been decided by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed and Annexure -PD, dated 16.2.2001 is quashed and set aside. The Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner by passing a speaking order, within a period of three months after the production of certified copy of this judgment, by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge December 2, 2010 (K. Attri)