IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 12370 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 1 , 2011 Arvind Kashyap Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. D. P. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, instant petition needs to be allowed in view of the dismissal of the petition filed by the private respondent Sh. Mohan Singh. 2. It is not in dispute that this Court in CWP(T) No. 2433 of 2008 (OA No. 366 of 1995), titled as Mohan Singh Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 versus State of H.P. and others, had passed the following directions in terms of judgment dated 21st May, 2010:- “9. In this background, the review Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 5.8.1994, recommending the name of the private respondent for the 11th post cannot be said to be illegal or their recommendation contrary to law. In the earlier DPC the roster point had been wrongly applied which necessitated the review of DPC subsequently. Importantly with the issuance of order dated 29.10.1993 (Annexure A-5) the promotion percentage for the reserved category of candidates had gone up by more than 15%. As per the roster point 11th post was to be filled up by a candidate belonging to general category and not a reserved category. Hence, it cannot be said that the order passed by the authorities is bad in law. 10. The petitioner had no legally enforceable right to continue to hold the post of Technical Assistant pursuant to his promotion in terms of Annexure A-5. The promotion is clearly dehors the rules. No fault can be found with the order passed by the authorities rejecting the petitioner’s representation. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is dismissed. Interim order is vacated.” 3. It is not clear from the record as to whether the said judgment has attained finality or not. 3 4. Assuming that the same has attained finality, case of Sh. Arvind Kashyap, petitioner in the instant case which was in fact considered by the D.P.C. meeting held on 5.8.1994 needs to be considered on the basis of the recommendations made therein. 5. The State shall take all consequential actions of promoting the petitioner, pursuant to the recommendations made by the D.P.C. in its meeting held on 5.8.1994. Needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 1 , 2011 (PK)