IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 15103 of 2008 Decided on: 6th December, 2011 Ramesh Kumar Verma ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Karol,J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “a. That the applicant be considered for the purpose of promotion against the post of principal College Cadre by the D.P.C. b. That the respondents may also be directed to offer the appointment for the post of Principal College Cadre in case his name is recommended by the D.P.C. c. That in the alternative the recommendations of the D.P.C. and any consequential appointments may be quashed and set aside. d. That the record of the case may be called for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court. e. That cost of case may kindly be awarded in favour of the applicant. f. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.” 2. Facts are not much in dispute. As on 3rd January, 2007 when DPC had met to consider the name of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Principal (College Cadre), petitioner had neither passed his examination in the subject of Hindi nor had he sought exemption from the employer, in terms of relevant rules, extract of which is placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure P- 2 14. As such respondents, as has been explained by them in their reply, rightly did not consider the petitioner’s case for promotion in the meeting of the DPC held on 3rd January, 2007. It was only in February, 2007 when petitioner applied for exemption from passing examination in the subject of Hindi. The same was accorded to him in March, 2007. As such petitioner’s name can be considered only for such vacancy which has arisen thereafter. 3. Thus, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to such of the vacancies which have arisen after March, 2007. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed off. December 6th, 2011 (Sanjay Karol ), (jai) Judge.