IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T)-5421 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.05.2011 Vinod Goel … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Dalip Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.2: Mr.D.K. Khanna, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner herein challenges Annexure P- 15, which is Notification dated 18th March, 1998 issued in the name of the Governor promoting the persons therein, who were discharging duty of Substantive Tehsildars, to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service on probation from the date mentioned against each of them. 2. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner for the period 1.4.1991 to 28.8.1991 which were expunged 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 vide Annexure A-2 by the Financial Commissioner-cum- Secretary(Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and for the period 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991 which were expunged vide Annexure A-6 have been used against him in assessing his suitability for being promoted to the H.A.S. which fact, according to the petitioner, is established by the fact that persons junior to him who have been impleaded as respondents herein have been promoted. 3. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the record of the Departmental proceedings was called for and perused by me. I find the apprehension of the petitioner unfounded. His case has been considered by the Departmental Promotions Committee correctly. He has been found fit and ranked “Good” for the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1993-94 and “Very Good” for the years 1992-93 and 1994-95. His final assessment is “Good”. His order in the merit list is at No.19. This dispels any doubt that the petitioner has been discriminated against. Considering the case of the various persons for being recommended to be promoted to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service, learned counsel had pointed the names of few officers who, according to the petitioner, were to be ranked junior to him. I have seen the record of the Departmental Promotion Committee and I again find that the apprehension is ill founded. The case of the petitioner has in-fact been considered. 3 He has been found to be fit and ranked as “Good”. The other officers against whom an apprehension is expressed have been graded as under:- S/Shri: “1. Ramesh Kumar Sharma Fit Good 2. S.N.Nishpakshi Fit Good 3. Vinod Goel Fit Good 4. Bhagat Ram Bhlaik Fit Very Good 5. Deva Singh Negi(ST) Fit Very Good 6. Subhash Chand Nanda Fit Very Good 7. Gopal Sharma Fit Very Good 8. Beli Ram Kondal (SC) Fit Very Good 9. V.K. Negi (ST) Fit Very Good” 4. In these circumstances, I find that there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly rejected. May 18, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.