IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9075 of 2008. Decided on: 21.4.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : None though served. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7 (i) & (ii):- “7 (i). That the respondents be directed to promote the applicant and equally situated persons to be post of Junior Engineer. (ii). That the respondents be directed to give the applicant and equally situated persons the benefit of scale as long as they are not promoted to the post of Junior Engineer.” 2. In the reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide paras 1 and 2 of the preliminary submissions:- “1. That no legal or fundamental right of the applicant has ever been infringed or violated and the O.A. filed by him is not maintainable, as it is simply based on conjectures and surmises and does not have any findings. As a matter of fact, the benefits whatsoever 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 accruing under the rule are being allowed to the employees as per pay revision rules and the applicant has never been debarred of any incremental benefit under the ACP Scheme introduced by the Govt. of H.P. It is further submitted that all promotions to the post of J.Es. are to be made by the competent authority as per R&P Rules in vogue and the category of Surveyor has not been barred of the promotional avenues, as alleged by the applicant. More so, the applicant’s name yet does not fall under the zone of consideration for promotion as per criteria/norms/seniority for his promotion against the post of Jr. Engineer as such he does not have any cause of action at the moment. As per R&P Rules which provides 1% reservation to the category of the applicant at the time of promotion to the post of JE (C), essential qualification for being eligible under the said rule, is matriculation or those Surveyors and Road Inspectors, who do not possess any technical qualification and are matriculate and have put in 12 years service in the grade or 15 years service as Surveyor/R.I. and RI/WI, have 2% reservation i.e. 1% to the category of applicant, copy of the said R&P Rules is annexed as Annexure R-1. Since the applicant does not fall within the consideration zone as per the clubbed seniority in his category, therefore, has no cause of action to file the present O.A., which is highly mis- conceived and untenable in the eyes of law for the reasons stated above and thus deserves to be dismissed. 2. That the training is being imparted to the Supervisory staff just to make them 3 abreast/updated with the modern technique and changing technical know how in various construction activities and this has nothing to do with the promotion quota or acquiring any technical qualification by the Supervisors for being promoted as JE, as per aforesaid R&P Rules, so the apprehension of the applicant does not sustain and has no relevant, as alleged by him and therefore present O.A. filed by him deserves to be set aside.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he may make a representation along with copy of this judgment to respondents No.1 and 2/competent authority within one month from today who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within next three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 4. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. April 21, 2011. (cr)