IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 2140 of 2008 with CWP(T) No. 2151of 2008. Decided on 14.07.2010. _________________________________________________________ 1. Sushila Devi. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 2. Sairu Ram Kashyap. ….Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. CWP(T) 2140 of 2008. For the petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. CWP(T) 2151 of 2008. For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1&2 : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. None for respondent No. 3. Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2. The case of the petitioners, in a nut-shell, is that they are in feeder category, i.e., Agriculture Sub-Inspector and were eligible and qualified for being considered for the post of Agriculture Development Officer before the promulgation of new rules called the “Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Services (Class-I Gazetted) Non-Ministerial Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1995”, notified on 19th June, 1995. Their further case is that the vacancies which were existing before the promulgation of new rules, i.e, 19th June, 1995, were required to be filled according to the old Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 3. This issue is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.V. Rangaiah and others versus J. Sreenivasa Rao and others, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 852, State of Rajasthan versus R. Dayal and others, (1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases 419. 3. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General, duly assisted by Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that since no vacancies were available, the case of the petitioners could not be considered. 4. The petitioner in CWP(T) No. 2140 of 2008 has placed on record the vacancy position by way of C.M.P. No. 764 of 2009 to establish that the vacancies were available after the superannuation of persons, details whereof have been given in Para-3 of the application. It is well settled law that the old vacancies are to be filled up according to old Recruitment and Promotion Rules and new vacancies as per new Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The right to be considered for promotion has now been termed as fundamental right (See Union of India and another versus Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others, AIR 2010 SC 1682). 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners according to old rules for promotion to the post of Agriculture Development Officer after working out the vacancies as per Para-3 of C.M.P. No. 764 of 2009, within a period of four weeks from today. In case the petitioners are found suitable, they shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 14, 2010. (bhupender)