IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.131 of 2003 Decided on : April 9, 2009 State of H.P. and others …Petitioners. Versus Dila Ram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for other respondents. Per Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) State has filed the present petition, under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India, for judicial review of order, dated 27th June, 2002, passed in Original Application No.1823 of 1993, which respondent No.1 Dila Ram filed against the petitioners and proforma respondents No.2 to 6, seeking a direction to the petitioners to give him promotion from 20th June, 1991, instead of from the year 1993. 2. Respondent No.1 Dila Ram was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department of Himachal Pradesh, on 1st January, 1956. He is sixth standard pass. Promotions from the rank of Constable to the rank of Head Constable are made by two modes. Ninety five per cent Constables are promoted on the basis of their successfully undergoing training, while in service Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… and ten per cent promotions are given to those Constables, who are exempted from undergoing such training. Respondent No.1 Dila Ram’s case fell in ten per cent category of exemptee Constables. He was promoted in the year 1993. He had been seeking promotion against the quota of exemptee Constables, since 1991, but was never considered for promotion against that quota. So, he filed Original Application seeking a direction that he be given promotion from 20th June, 1991, the date from which respondent No.4 Narpat Ram and late Shri Jagdish Chand, now represented by his Legal Representatives, respondents No.5(a) to 5(d), had been promoted. 3. Petitioner, who was impleaded as respondent No.1, contested the Original Application. It was stated that respondent No.1 Dila Ram (applicant before the Tribunal) was only sixth standard pass and because of his low educational qualification he had not been sent for Lower School Course, despite his having represented for the same and that those junior to him, namely respondent No.4 Narpat Ram and deceased Jagdish Chand, had been promoted because of their having undergone Lower School Course. 4. Learned Tribunal sent for the record and on perusal of the record found that respondent No.4 Narpat Ram and deceased Jagdish Chand, now represented by his Legal Representatives, respondents No.5(a) to 5(d), had been promoted, not on account of their having undergone Lower School Course but against ten per cent quota fixed for exemptees. Learned Tribunal observed that respondent No.1 …3… Dila Ram, who too was eligible for being considered against ten per cent quota for exemptees, was never considered, because his name had not been recommended by the Superintendent of Police of the District in which he had been posted and because of that he was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Learned Tribunal also looked into the service record of respondent No.1 Dila Ram, as also respondent No.4 Narpat Ram and deceased Jagdish Chand, and found that not only that the service record of respondent No.1 Dila Ram was better but he was also better qualified than the said two respondents. Learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the present petitioners to consider respondent No.1 Dila Ram for promotion, w.e.f. 20th June, 1991, against ten per cent quota meant for exemptee Constables. 5. It has not been denied on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No.1 Dila Ram is better qualified as he possesses higher qualification compared to respondent No.4 Narpat Ram and deceased Jagdish Chand, nor has it been denied that his service record is atleast as good as that of the abovestated two respondents, if not better. 6. It has also not been disputed by the petitioners that the case of respondent No.1 Dila Ram was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, on account of his name having not been forwarded/recommended by the concerned Superintendent of Police. Respondent No.1 Dila Ram could not have been ignored, in the matter of promotion, simply on account of the failure of the Superintendent of Police, under …4… whom he was working at the relevant time, to forward his name for consideration. In view of the abovestated position, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, in exercise of our discretionary power of judicial review. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. April 9, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.