IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 6006 of 2008. Decided on 29.06.2010. _____________________________________________________ Dalip Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate Generals. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as P.E.T. on the basis of the recommendations made by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vide office order dated 15th October, 1994. However, he was neither considered for promotion to the post of D.P.E. nor for batch-wise appointment. He belongs to 1988 batch. Petitioner has also made a representation on 15th June, 1999. The post of D.P.E. is to be filled up 75% by promotion and 25% by way of direct recruitment. However, the State has taken a decision to fill up 50% of the Class-III and Class-IV posts on batch-wise basis. In fact, the department had been filling up the posts of P.T.I., P.E.T. and D.P.E. on batch-wise basis. The respondent-State has sent a 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. communication on 12th March, 1999 to all the employment exchanges to sponsor the names of eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of D.P.E. on regular basis. However, the petitioner was not called for interview. Petitioner was informed that his case can only be considered against promotional quota being already in service. 2. The case of the respondent-State, in a nut-shell, is that since the name of the petitioner was not sponsored by the employment exchange, his case could not be considered for batch- wise appointment. The petitioner cannot be faulted for not sponsoring his name by the employment exchange. 3. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner’s name was registered with the employment exchange after acquiring higher qualification. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as well as for direct recruitment to the post of D.P.E. as and when the posts are filled up on batch-wise basis. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 29, 2010. (bhupender)