IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2253/2008 Decided on:10.4.2009 Shiv Dutt Garg. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioner : Mr.Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 in person. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Editor on 30.11.1978. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Editor on 28.12.1984. Thereafter he was promoted as a Chief Organizer Radio Rural Forum, Class-II in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1580 on 10.7.1986. The post of Chief Organizer Radio Rural Forum, Class-II was re-designated as Editor on 14.11.1986. He was appointed to the re-designated post of Editor on 1.12.1986. He was promoted to the post of Senior Editor on ad hoc basis on 21.6.1993 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 and was regularly promoted on 23.4.1994. The precise case as set out by the petitioner is that he was to be considered for promotion with effect from 10.7.1991 and not with effect from 23.4.1994. His representation was rejected on 25.10.1993. Respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Deputy Director on ad hoc basis on 19.6.1993. He was promoted as a Deputy Director on regular basis with effect from 4.2.1994. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client was to be considered for promotion with effect from 10.7.1991. He has further contended that the respondents No.1 to 3 have unduly favoured respondent No.4 by considering him against the post of Deputy Director with effect from 4.2.1994. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate submit that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were duly considered in accordance with law. Respondent No.4 has appeared in person and has justified his promotion on regular basis with effect from 4.2.1994 to the post of Deputy Director. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The post in question was not vacant as claimed by the petitioner since the same was occupied by one Sh. Z.R. Siddiqui till 27.5.1993. The petitioner had passed the departmental examination in the month of December, 1992 and since in respect of Hindi paper, relaxation from the Government was necessary, it was sought by respondent No.2 on 20.1.1993. It was in these circumstances that he could not be promoted to the post of Senior Editor prior to 18.2.1993. The respondents had to complete the formalities of obtaining the VCC from the competent authority and holding of Departmental Promotion Committee by the 3 Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Editor on ad hoc basis on 21.6.1993 pending completion of codal formalities by respondents No.2 and 3. He was promoted on regular basis with effect from 23.4.1994. Respondent No.4 was holding the gazetted post Class-II with effect from 28.9.1979. The petitioner was promoted to a gazetted post on 28.12.1984. The post of Deputy Director to which respondent No.4 was promoted on 4.2.1994 is filled up from the feeder category of District Public Relation Officer/information Officer. The post of Senior Editor is filled from the category of Editors alone. Respondent No.4 had put in six years qualifying service on 10.8.1989. He was appointed to the post of Deputy Director on 4.2.1994 on the recommendations of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. It is evident from the bare perusal of Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 23.2.1987 for filling up the post of Joint Director that the promotion is to be made from amongst the Deputy Directors, Public Relations/Senior Editor with at least three years regular service or ad hoc. It is a selection post. It means that the post in question is to be filled up on merit. The petitioner cannot find fault with the promotion of respondent No.4 to the post of Deputy Director with effect from 4.2.1994. He came from a different stream. The petitioner came from different stream of Editors. Respondent No.4 has apprised the Court during the hearing that he has been promoted to the post of Joint Director. The promotion of respondent No.4 to the higher post of Joint Director has not been assailed by the petitioner. The petitioner became eligible as noticed above in February, 1993 and thereafter he was promoted pending codal formalities on ad hoc basis on 21.6.1993. He was promoted on regular basis on 23.4.1994. Respondent No.4 was fully eligible and qualified for being considered for promotion to the post of 4 Deputy Director as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The plea of mala fides attributed to respondents No.1 to 3 has not been substantiated. It is easier to allege mala fides but difficult to prove. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 10.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*