IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No.3836/2008 (OA No. 1619/96) Date of Decision : March 19, 2009 Sh. Jeet Ram Chauhan Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioner : Mr. N.D. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with No.1 Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy A.G. For the respondent : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. No.2 For the respondent : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, vice counsel. No. 3 Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may be directed to finalise the seniority list in accordance with decision rendered in O.A. No. 27/86 titled as Jagdish Chand vs. HRTC and circulate the same before its finalization. (ii) That after the finalization of seniority list in accordance with aforesaid judgment of this Hon’ble 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Tribunal the applicant consequently may be promoted as Regional Manager (Stores) from the date of promotion of respondent No. 3 who was junior to the applicant.” During the course of hearing, Mr. Sharma, however, submitted that the decision rendered in OA No. 1619 of 1996 shall have no bearing on the facts of the present case. His challenge, however, is with regard to the appointment of Shri Ram Chand Sharma, respondent No. 3, as Regional Manager (Stores). On 23.7.1969 petitioner was appointed as a Store Keeper in the department of transport, state of Himachal Pradesh. With the incorporation of the Himachal Pradesh Roadways Transport Corporation he opted to join the Corporation where he continued to work as such. With the passage of time, on 29th of November 1986 he was selected as Assistant Manager (Stores) in the Corporation. His appointment was by way of selection and not promotion. As per the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (Class I, II, III and IV) Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Services) (fourth amendment) Regulations Act, 1984 the next higher promotional post is that of Manager. The eligibility criteria for selection/promotion is as under:- “Method of appointment: By promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. 3 Eligibility for promotion: From amongst Assistant Manager (Stores) with atleast 3 years service as such. Qualification for direct recruitments Degree in Mechanical Engineering with automobile Engineering as one of the subjects. Degree in Automobile Engineering/MBA with three years experience in Material Management in a State Transport Undertaking/Public Sector Undertaking/Government Department/Large Industrial Establishment.” In terms of the said rule, Shri Ram Chand, private respondent No. 3, was appointed as Manager (Stores) and posted as Regional Manager (Stores) w.e.f. 1.4.1988. This is evident from the order of Promotion dated 8th November 1990 (Annexure-A8). It is this order, which is now sought to be assailed by Mr. N.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that Shri Ram Chand Sharma, being junior to the petitioner was promoted and the petitioner’s claim was wrongly ignored and not considered for promotion to the said post. Respondent No. 2 Corporation in its reply has clarified that the appointment of Shri R.C. Sharma was made on the recommendation of the DPC, taking into account Rule-7 of HRTC R&P Rules, 1983 which specifically provides that the relative seniority of direct recruits and the promotees shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in the cadre. This rule has not been assailed and is in vogue. It has been further explained that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager (Stores) 4 w.e.f. 29.11.1986 as a direct recruit whereas Shri Ram Chand Sharma had started officiating much prior to the said date. This fact cannot be said to be incorrect. In this view of the matter, the petitioner had no legitimate claim of being considered for the promotional post as persons senior to him namely Shri Ram Chand Sharma, Shri Moti Ram, Shri Suresh Raj and Shri Jagdish Chand were considered and promoted and the vacancies filled-up as and when they fell due. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has got no legally enforceable right. Hence, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 19, 2009 (vs)