1/2 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2107/96 (Devi Lal vs. State of Raj.) DATE OF ORDER : 20/1/2009 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Manoj Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr.G.R.Punia, Addl. Advocate General. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed that in spite of Rule 12, proviso to which exempts him from having any experience of Administration of Employment Exchange in the capacity of Assistant Director he being a Scheduled Tribe candidate, still he was not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director in the year 1978 though he was eligible to be so considered. 2. From the reply filed by the respondents, it appears that the respondents have submitted that since petitioner was not having the requisite experience, therefore, he did not fall in the zone of consideration. Rule 12 as quoted by the petitioner in para 10 of the writ is quoted below for ready reference: “R.12. Academic and Technical Qualifications for direct recruitment:- (I) Director and Deputy Director: (i) Educational Qualifications: A First or Second Class Degree in Arts, Science or Commerce of a recognized University established by law in India or any degree or diploma recognized by Government as equivalent qualifications. (ii) Training: Candidates should be trained in Employment Exchange Procedure and should be well- conversant with the various manpower and Employment Schemes administered by the Directorate of Employment. (iii) Experience: At least 5 years experience of administration of Employment Exchange in the capacity of an Assistant Director or a Sub-Regional Employment 2/2 Officer. Provided that the candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes need not possess this experience.” 3. However, at the time of filing of this writ petition in the year 1996 the petitioner was shown to be of 57 years of age in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Petitioner has since retired from service long back and cannot de facto be given promotion even if some force is found in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Anr vs. Vinod Kumar Srivastava – (2006) 9 SCC 621, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that High Court while granting promotion and awarding arrears of monetary benefits could not have granted interest thereon. This is not the case here. Since this Court is of the opinion that by sheer lapse of time petitioner cannot be reinstated on the promotional post even if he was directed to be considered for that position, no benefit in fact can be given to the petitioner in view of long lapse of time. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition has become infructuous and same is dismissed as such. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no. 8 baweja/-