IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2375 of 2008. Decided on: 05.03.2009. Shri Besar Dass. … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Another. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate vice counsel for the petitioner. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner was promoted to the post of Kanungo vide office order dated 10th November, 1994. A rider was put in the office order to the effect that the candidates mentioned in this office order will be reverted as Patwaris as and when such qualified candidates would be available for appointment as Kanungo. The petitioner’s promotion was challenged by S/Shri Mast Ram and Sohan Singh by way of Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - representations. The names of Mast Ram and Sohan Singh figured at Sr. No.225 and 248 respectively of the seniority list and they also belong to Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner’s name figured at Sr. No.277 though he also belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The representations made by S/Shri Mast Ram and Sohan Singh were accepted which resulted in reversion of the petitioner to the post of patwari. The version of the petitioner that he did not receive the reversion order stands belied in view of the detailed reply filed by the respondents. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner was reverted from the post of Kanungo to which he was promoted temporarily. So far as the case of one Shri Nand Lal is concerned, his name figured at Sr. No.66 of the seniority list. Thus, he was also senior to the petitioner. In these circumstances there is no illegality or irregularity in the order whereby the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Patwari. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. March 05, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.