IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 10022 of 2008. Decided on: 17.11.2011. __________________________________________________________ Karam Chand … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : None. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.AG. for respondents No. 1&2. None for respondent No.4. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). As per report of the Registry, steps for service of respondents No. 3 & 5 are not being taken by the petitioner despite repeated opportunities having been granted since 7.7.2011. 2. The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii):- “(i). That the respondents may be directed to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade II in the category of Scheduled Tribe from the date when the vacancy caused for this category on the retirement of Sh. Krishan Lal, with all consequential benefits including seniority. (ii). That for giving promotion to the applicant from due date, the promotion of respondents No. 3 to 5 may be quashed.” 3. In reply, respondents No. 1 & 2 have taken the following stand vide para 6 (vi) and (vii):- “6 (vi) & (vii). In reply to these sub paras, it is submitted that point No.10 of explanatory notes of the instructions issued by the personnel 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 department vide letter No. PER (AP)-C-B (12)- 1/98 dated 20.8.1998 (Annexure A-6), it is clear that roster is to be operated on the principle of replacement and not as a ‘running account’ as hitherto. In other words, the points at which reservation for different categories applies are fixed as per the roster and vacancies caused by retirement etc. of persons occupying these points shall be filled by appointment of persons of the respective categories. The vacancies which were available for being filled up were caused due to superannuation of Shri Kishori Lal, Supdt. Gr- II on 3.2.2002 and promotion of S/Shri Hoshiar Singh and Puran Chand, Supdt. Gr.II on 3.2.2003. Apart from this, one resultant post was due for being vacated by the incumbent of post of Supdt. Gr.I Smt. Bala Devi on superannuation w.e.f. 1.7.2003. Accordingly, the year-wise break-up of vacancies was as under:- Recruitment year No. of posts. 2002 1 2003 3 As the promotions are to be made by taking into consideration vacancies falling due in each recruitment year separately, as such the vacancies pertaining to the recruitment year 2002 was filled from the seniormost official respondent No.3. The three vacancies were filled up on ad hoc and the following officials were considered purely on the basis of seniority:- 1. Shri Rattan Lal-Respondent No.4. 2. Shri Girdhari Lal-Respondent No.5. 3. Shri karam Chand-Applicant. From the above, it stands out clear that due representation was given to the member of S.T. category and the promotion orders were issued as per the order indicated above. In the 3 roster, the points which were to be filled up were as under:- Point Category 7 SC 8 General 9 General 10 General. The department after calculating the actual percentage of reservation of various categories promoted Shri Karam Chand, applicant of S.T. category to the post of Supdt. Gr.II vide this office order No. 2-16/82- EXN-H-Estt. 17660-684 dated 17.7.2003 (Annexure R-II) on ad hoc basis as per instructions of the Govt. conveyed vide letter No. PER (AP)-C-F-(1)-1/1/2002 dated 24.10.2002. Copy of the letter is enclosed herewith as Annexure R-1.” 4. There is no reply on behalf of the remaining respondents. 5. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he may make a representation supported by documents along with copy of this judgment to respondents No. 1 & 2/competent authority within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and the said respondents/competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within further three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 17, 2011. (cr)