IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4984 of 2008. Date of decision: 17.8.2010 Ramesh Chand Verma …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & anr. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Dalip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: S/Sh.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G with Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General for respondent No.1. S/Sh.Ajay Mohan Goel and Suneel Mohan Goel, Advocates for respondent No.2. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the seniority list whereby the respondent No.2 has been placed over him. It is not disputed that in the cadre of Assistant Engineers, the petitioner was senior to the respondent No.2. Though both the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were promoted as Executive Engineers but the petitioner was superseded. 2 2. The case of the petitioner is that previously a D.P.C. was held in the year December, 1995 in which he was recommended for promotion for the vacancy in the year 1993. 3. Pursuant to the judgment of the erstwhile H.P Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A No.2394 of 1996 titled D.K.Navar & ors. Vs. State of H.P and O.A No.174 of 1996 titled Naresh Sharma and others Vs. H.P of State and others, a fresh review DPC was held in 1997. I have examined the entire records of the earlier DPC as well as of the review DPC. While holding the review DPC, the number of vacancies in the corresponding years increased. In fact, Sh.R.C.Verma, petitioner was first considered for the vacancy falling in the year 1988 but he was assessed as ‘Good’ and was much lower down in the list and could not be appointed. The number of vacant posts for the next year was only eight and the petitioner did not fall within the zone of consideration. For the year 1990, both the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were considered. Though they both were in the zone of consideration, they were not found suitable. Finally, the vacancies for the year 1991 were considered. The petitioner was assessed as ‘Very Good’ and the 3 respondent No.2 was assessed as ‘Outstanding’. Both were ordered to be promoted but since the respondent No.2 had been graded higher, he was placed senior in the cadre of Executive Engineers. Admittedly, they both were appointed in the lower cadre as Assistant Engineers in the same year and as per the Guidelines and Rules, a person who is graded higher shall supersede the person graded lower unless the difference is more than two years. 4. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. August 17, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge 4