IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No.: 364 of 2011. Decided on: 02.09.2011. ___________________________________________ Rajmal. … Petitioner. Versus Deepak Sanana and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): On the oral application of Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, H.P. Public Service Commission through its Secretary is added as party/respondent No.3. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Notice. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Similarly, Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.3. 3. With the consent of parties, the present petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 4. This Court has disposed of CWP(T) No.12622 of 2008 on 5.7.2010 in the following manner:- “Petitioner was promoted to the post of Kanungo in the year 1986. He was transferred to Revenue Training Centre, Jogindernagar in the year 1996. The petitioner is working in Revenue Training Centre, Jogindernagar for the last 14 years. He has not been promoted to the higher post on the ground that the Revenue Training Centre has not framed the Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the terms and conditions of service of the employees working therein. However, it has come in the reply that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the terms and conditions of service of the employees are under process. Consequently, the respondents are directed to frame the Recruitment and Promotion Rules as per contents of reply within a period of three months from today. …….” 5. Thereafter the petitioner filed COPC No.62 of 2011. This Court passed the following order on 21.4.2011:- - 3 - “Mr. Gian Chand, Joint Secretary (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh is present in the Court. He submits that the draft rules are ready. 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to send the draft rules to the Finance Department within a period of ten days. The Finance Department will do the needful within a further period of one week. Thereafter, the same shall be referred to the Law Department within a period of one week. The Law Department shall finalize the rules within a further period of one week. The final Recruitment and Promotion Rules shall be published in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission within a period of three weeks thereafter. The case of petitioner shall be considered for promotion immediately after framing of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. …….” 6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the new Recruitment Promotion Rules have been framed, however, the petitioner has not been considered for promotion. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan also submits that his client has to superannuate on 31st December, 2011. 7. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General was permitted to seek instructions. He, on the basis of instructions imparted to him by Mr. Prem Singh Thakur, under Secretary (Revenue), who is present in Court, submits - 4 - that the case of the petitioner shall be considered for promotion as per the new Recruitment and Promotion Rules by sending the case of the petitioner to the H.P. Public Service Commission. He further submits that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion since vigilance clearance certificate has not been obtained from the Vigilance Department. The respondent-State is directed to obtain the vigilance clearance certificate within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter the case of the petitioner for promotion shall be sent to the H.P. Public Service Commission, as undertaken hereinabove, for convening the Departmental Promotion Committee. After the receipt of requisition/case of the petitioner, respondent No.3 shall do the needful within a further period of four weeks. The suitability of the petitioner shall be adjudged and thereafter the case of the petitioner shall be sent to the Government for issuing necessary orders. 8. Consequently, in view of the above discussions/ directions, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 02, 2011. (sck).