HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 1173 of 2001 Decided on: 14.7.2008. Jit Ram Sharma ……… Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and another. ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): The petitioner before us served in the Indian Air Force from 1964 to 1981. After his discharge from the Air Force, he was appointed in the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) as Station Supervisor in September, 1985 against a post reserved for ex serviceman. Immediately after his appointment, the petitioner applied to the HRTC for grant of the benefits available to him under the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal Pradesh State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules). The petitioner, admittedly, was granted the benefit of pay fixation for the purpose of these Rules. ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - A higher post of Assistant Manager fell vacant in the meantime and DPC for consideration of eligible employees met on May 9, 1988. The DPC did not consider the petitioner for the higher post because of the stipulation in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Manager that the concerned candidate should have completed 3 years of service in the lower post. Admittedly, the petitioner had not completed 3 years service as on May 9, 1988. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that if the benefit of seniority rendered in the Air Force had been given to him, he being the senior-most should have been considered for promotion. Even if the petitioner was the senior-most, he would not have been eligible for promotion since he had not completed 3 years of service as Station Supervisor, which was an essential qualification in terms of Recruitment and Promotion Rules for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. Admittedly, the petitioner had been promoted as Assistant Manager in the year 1989. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the Original Application filed by the petitioner. We also find no merit in the present petition, which is dismissed accordingly. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. July 14, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.