IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7663 of 2011 Decided on: 14.9.2011 Baldev Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for . respondents No. 1 and 2. _______________________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, CJ (oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- I) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion against the post of Assistant Electrical Inspector from the due date in view of notification dated 17.1.1974 (Annexure P-1) since as per Clause 10 & 11 of Annexure P-1, the petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualification for the promotion against the post of Assistant Electrical Inspector and in light of Annexure P-4 wherein 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- the respondent has admitted that the petitioner fulfills the criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Electrical Inspector. II) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2) within a stipulated period. III) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and Annexure P-3 dated 22.6.2010, may kindly be quashed and set aside in view of the fact that promotion order to the post of Assistant Electrical Inspector can be issued by Respondent No. 2 but in the instant case, in violation of Rules, same has been issued by the Respondent No. 3 without appreciating the Recruitment & Promotion Rules as per Annexure P-1. 2. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this matter, it is not necessary to issue notice to the 4th respondent at this stage. Petitioner prays that his representation can be directed to be considered by the 2nd respondent. In the representation, he has asked for considering his claim for promotion. There will be direction to the 2nd respondent/competent authority to look into Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-5 reminder and take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. In case in the process, -3- 4th respondent is likely to be affected, the 4th respondent shall also be offered an opportunity for hearing in the matter. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 14, 2011 (Bhupender/K. Attri)