IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.9547/2008 Reserved on: 14.12.2010 Decided on:31.12. 2010 _____________________________________________ Chaman Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of Forest Guard. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was ranking senior to respondent No.3 in the seniority list. However, he has been over looked for promotion to the post of Forest Guard. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Ramesh Sharma has strenuously argued that his client, being senior, ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Forest Guard. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the promotions were made on the basis of limited competitive test held on 6.6.2003. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Fourteen posts of Forest Guards were allotted to Chamba Forest Circle vide letter dated 21.3.2003. A committee was constituted consisting of Conservator of Forest, as Chairman, Divisional Forest Officer, Chamba and the-then Divisional Forest Officer (Headquarters). The following criteria was adopted by the Selection Committee: i) for minimum educational qualification = 10 marks ii) General knowledge =10 marks iii) Experience and extra curricular activities= 7 marks iv) Personality = 3 marks. 6. Petitioner secured 13.5 marks and respondent No.3 secured 18.5 marks. The suitability of the petitioner and respondent No.3 has been adjudged by a duly constituted Selection Committee. Respondent No.3 was found suitable as per the criteria prescribed for limited competitive test. Respondent-State has filled up ten posts of general category, 3 three posts of Scheduled Caste category and one post of Schedule Tribe category. Since respondent No.3 has been found more meritorious on the basis of limited competitive test, as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, there is no illegality in his promotion. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 31.12. 2010 *awasthi*