IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 5887 of 2008. Decided on: 02.08.2010. __________________________________________________________ Suresh Kumar Bansal. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner. : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.3 to 7 ex-parte. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he has not been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. It has come in the reply that the case of the petitioner alongwith respondents No.3 to 7 was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The post of Assistant Engineer is to be filled up on the basis of selection. The case of the petitioner has been considered by the duly constituted Selection Committee. The respondents No.3 to 7 were found more meritorious vis-à-vis the petitioner on the basis of Annual Confidential Reports and the difference in the length of service in the feeder category of the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 7 was also less than two years. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - The Court will not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the duly constituted Selection Committee. Moreover, no malafide is alleged against any member of the Selection Committee. 2. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 02, 2010. (sck).