IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6245 of 2008 Decided on: 10.11.2010 Raj Kumar …. Petitioner Versus H.P. Tourism Development Corporation and ors. …. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Virender Rathore and Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocates. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(a) That the impugned order dated 2-9-1999 (ann-A- 3) and O.M. dated 12-4-1999 (ann-A-6) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) That the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to convene a fresh D.P.C. and consider the merit of the applicant alongwith other eligible candidates, if any, for the selection and appointment to the posts of Senior Assistant (Accounts) from the date on which the regular vacancies were available. © That respondent No. 1 may further be directed that in case the merit of the applicant is considered alongwith respondents No. 2 to 9 for selection to the posts of Senior Assistants(Accounts), greater weightage ought to be given to the merit of the applicant in view of the fact that he has cleared the departmental eligibility test in 1990 and he has been 2 discharging his duties of higher responsibility since 1990 whereas the respondents 2 to 9 have been working as Accounts Clerks only. (d) That in the event of holding of the fresh D.P.C., if the applicant is selected on merit, his adhoc promotion may kindly be directed to be counted towards seniority and other consequential service benefits.” 2. It is seen that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected as per Annexure A-6, which order reads as follows:- “It is to inform you that your appeal dated 3.9.97 was placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 22.3.99. You were superseded on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Hence your appeal has been considered and rejected by the Board of Directors.” 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and being a selection post, he was superseded in view of more meritorious candidates available in the zone of consideration. But the crucial contention of the petitioner is that the Departmental Promotion Committee should have first identified the vacancies, which arose in the respective years and prepared separate selected list for those years is not seen addressed. We do not find any specific reply in that regard, though the ground is taken. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the matter is considered afresh by the appellate authority. We, therefore, set aside Annexure A-6 and direct the appellate authority to consider Annexure A-5 (appeal) on the grounds raised by the petitioner and which we have referred to above and pass an appropriate order within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy 3 of this judgment by the petitioner. In case, the petitioner requests for an opportunity of hearing, the same shall also be granted to him. 4. In view of the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja ), November 10, 2010 Judge (BSS/Pankaj) 4