IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.:2165 of 2008, Decided on: 29.05.2009. Parkash Chand. .… … … Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation … … … Respondents. and others. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? No.1 For the petitioner: Mr. Neel kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate. No.1 and 2. For the respondents: None. No.3 to 8. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner was appointed as Resin Watcher on regular basis on 1.9.1982. His precise case is that the respondents No.3 to 8, who were junior to him were appointed on regular basis before him and were subsequently promoted to the post of Forest Guard and further promoted to the posts of Deputy Ranger and Assistant Manager. The sum and substance of the reply filed by the respondent-Corporation is that the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion/appointment on regular basis as Resin Watcher in the year 1975-76 and 1977. Further case of Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - the respondent-Corporation is that the petitioner has neither placed on record any seniority list, nor promotion orders of the respondents. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitioner should have been ranked senior to the respondents No.3 to 8 on the basis of initial date of appointment and his client was liable to be promoted to the higher post of Forest Guard and Deputy Ranger before respondents No.3 to 8. Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate has vehemently argued that the suitability of the petitioner was adjudged in the year 1975-76 and 12.1.1977. According to him, he was not found suitable and the respondents No.3 to 8 were promoted/appointed as Resin Watchers on the basis of their performance. He lastly contended that the petitioner can neither assail their seniority, nor their promotion without placing on record the copies of the seniority list and their promotion orders. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The respondent-Corporation had sought the details of performance of the petitioner at the time when the promotions/appointments were effected to the post of Resin Watcher in 1975-76 and 12.1.1977. He was not found suitable on the basis of performance as per Annexures R-B and R-C. The respondents No.3 to 8 as per their performance were promoted. The petitioner has not assailed their promotion orders till the filing of this petition in the year 1993. In case he was aggrieved by the promotion/appointment of respondents No.3 to 8 effected in the year 1976-77, he should have assailed the same within a reasonable period of six months to one year. Similarly, - 3 - respondents No.3 to 8 were promoted on the basis of seniority assigned to them after their regular appointment as Resin Watcher to the post of Forest Guard, Deputy Ranger and Assistant Manager. The petitioner has not placed their promotion orders on record. It is settled law by now that till the orders are not placed on record, the same cannot be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No costs. May 29, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 4 -