IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.1994/2008 Decided on:7.7.2009 Gulam Rasul. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.3 and 4 exparte. Rajiv Sharma, J. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed T-mate on 6.8.1980. He was given the status of work charge Oiler and Cleaner on 1.10.1986. He was regularized as Oiler and Cleaner on 30.1.1987. The petitioner has primarily challenged the promotion of respondents No.3 and 4 to the post of Sub-Station Attendant. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that respondents No.3 and 4 were not qualified for the post of Sub-Station Attendant as per the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations framed in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 respect of field technical posts under the Operation Wing. His further contention was that neither respondent No.3 nor respondent No.4 has completed four years of qualifying service in the grade. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate has vehemently argued that respondents No.3 and 4 were senior to the petitioner and were fully eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Sub-Station Attendant. She has further contended that respondents No.3 and 4 were promoted as Sub-Station Attendant on 3.5 1989 and 22.4.1989, respectively and the present petition has been filed on 1.10.1991. In other words, her submission was that the present petition is barred by delay and laches. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. The promotion to the post of Sub-Station Attendant is regulated under the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations framed by the respondent-Board. It is to be filled by way of promotion from amongst the Oiler and Cleaner/Helper/Skilled Helper/Oilman/Wireman/Power House Helper/Helper for Sub-Station/Helper for Electrician/ Helper for Meter Gang having minimum service in the grade. The candidates having qualification of matriculation or equivalent with ITI certificate with two years qualifying service are eligible. The incumbents having qualification of matriculation or equivalent and having four years service are eligible. In case of other categories, the minimum qualifying service is six years as per the Regulations. Respondent No.3 was appointed as T-Mate work charge on 12.1.1977. He was appointed as Helper work charge on 1.3.1978. He was appointed as Oiler and Cleaner on 16.4.1984. Respondent No.4 was appointed as Helper (WC) on 26.10.1984. He completed four years on 25.10.1988. The petitioner was appointed, as noticed above, Oiler and Cleaner (WC) on 1.10.1986 and was regularized 3 as Oiler and Cleaner on 30.1.1997. He had completed four years on 30.9.1990. Respondents No.3 and 4 were promoted on 3.5.1989 and 22.4.1989, respectively. The petitioner has also been promoted to the post of Sub-Station Attendant on 18.1.1991. The petitioner has assailed the promotion orders of respondents No.3 and 4 after the lapse of one year and eight months. He was required to challenge the promotion of respondents No.3 and 4 within a period of six months to one year. It is settled law that the promotions should not be unsettled after a lapse of considerable period. The petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was heard on merit as well. A bare perusal of service record of respondent No.3 reveals that he was appointed as Oiler and Cleaner on 16.4.1984 and had put in four years of service as per Recruitment and Promotion Regulations and was rightly considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Station Attendant. He was promoted on 3.5.1989. Similarly, respondent No.4 was appointed as Helper work charge on 26.10.1984 and completed four years in this grade on 25.10.1988. He was also considered in accordance with law and promoted on 22.4.1989. Respondents No.3 and 4 were in possession of minimum qualifying service as per the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations framed by the Board. The petitioner had, however, completed four years of service on 30.9.1990 after being appointed as Oiler and Cleaner on 1.10.1986. He was also promoted on his turn on 18.1.1991. 4 Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. 7.7. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*