1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No.5144 of 2008 Date of Decision: 4th May, 2010 Ranjeet Singh Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That applicant may be given promotion as head Teacher with effect from 13.6.89. (ii) That applicant may kindly be granted back arrears and consequential benefits with effect from 13.6.1989 (iii) That the applicant may not be transferred to such a school which is not designated as Central School. (iv) That till the decision of the original Application, one post of Central Head Teacher/Head Teacher may kindly be kept vacant in the School where the applicant is posted presently.” 2. Private respondent No.4 Shri Dalip Kumar was promoted as Head Teacher on 13.6.1989. It is the petitioner’s grievance that even though Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 said respondent was junior to him yet he was promoted by totally ignoring the petitioner’s claim. There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner’s date of appointment i.e. 14.7.1976 and the date of appointment of respondent No.4 i.e. 20.3.1979. There is also no dispute that petitioner also stands promoted as Head Teacher but only with effect from 6.6.1997. 3. Petitioner’s grievance relates back to the year 1989 yet he filed the present petition being OA No.1183 of 1998 before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal only on 14.7.1998. The delay in approaching the Court is unexplainable. 4. That apart, having gone through the material placed on record I am of the view that no legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. 5. There is no doubt that both the petitioner and the private respondent were entitled for being promoted as Head Teacher as the post in question was reserved for a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste category. In the return the respondents have categorically stated that petitioner was treated as a general category candidate for the reason that he had not furnished his certificates and other documents making him eligible for consideration as a reserved category candidate. In the absence of any material to show him to be a candidate belonging to a reserved category he could not have been considered at all. It was only when later such certificate was furnished by the petitioner that he was promoted as per the available vacancy. Since the private respondent had submitted his papers in time he was promoted. 3 6. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. The respondents have considered the case of the petitioner in accordance with law on its turn. The present petition, without any merit, is dismissed. 4th May, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.