IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P(T) No. 6548 of 2008. Reserved on 30.08.2010. Decided on: 13.09.2010. Sarwan Ram. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge : Petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.6400-10640/- vide office order dated 11th February, 1999 (Annexure-PA). However, the same was withdrawn on the recommendations of review D.P.C. vide office order dated 25th February, 2000 (Annexure-PC). Petitioner has assailed the issuance of office order dated 25th February, 2000. 2. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to her client before the issuance of Annexure-PC on 25th February, 2000. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that no post of Superintendent Grade-II was available at the time when the D.P.C. met on 10.02.1999 and in these circumstances, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Superintendent Grade-II was erroneous and the same has been 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. rectified on the basis of the recommendations made by the review D.P.C. on 15.02.2000. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was promoted on 11.02.1999 as Superintendent Grade-II vide Annexure PA. The case of the respondent-State, in a nut-shell, is that no post of Superintendent Grade-II was available on the day when the D.P.C. met on 10.02.1999, on the recommendations of which, the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent Grade-II. It has come in the reply that one Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mohil, who was also belonging to S.C. category, was senior to the petitioner and even if hypothetically it is assumed that the post of Superintendent Grade-II was available, the case of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mohil, who had also filed an Original Application bearing No. 1444 of 1999, was required to be considered for promotion to the post in question. It is evident from the plain reading of Para-16.12 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol. I(Second Edition), page 522 that in case of erroneous promotions, the orders are required to be cancelled as soon as it is brought to the notice of the appointing authority that such a promotion has been resulted from a factual technical error and the Govt. servant should immediately on such cancellation be brought to the position which he would have held but for the incorrect order of promotion or an appointment. A detailed procedure has been provided in Swamy’s Compilation on Seniority and Promotion in Central Government Service under the circumstances in which the review D.P.C. can be convened, which reads thus: “ When Review DPC’s may be held 18.1 The proceedings of any DPC may be reviewed only, if the DPC has not taken all material facts into consideration or, if material facts have not been brought to the notice of the DPC or if there have been grave errors in the procedure followed by the DPC. Thus, it may be necessary to convene Review DPCs to rectify certain unintentional mistakes, e.g.,- (a) where eligible persons were omitted to be considered; or (b) where ineligible persons were considered by mistake; or (c) where the seniority of a person is revised with retrospective effect resulting in the variance of seniority list placed before the DPC; or (d) where some procedural irregularities were committed by a DPC; or (e) where adverse remarks in the CRs were toned down or expunged after the DPC had considered the case of the officer. These instances are not exhaustive but only illustrative. Scope and procedure 18.2 A Review DPC should consider only those persons who were eligible as on the date of meeting of original DPC. That is, persons who became eligible on a subsequent date should not be considered. Such cases will, of course, come up for consideration by a subsequent regular DPC. Further, the review DPC should restrict its scrutiny to the CRs for the period relevant to the first DPC. The CRs written for subsequent periods should not be considered. If any adverse remarks relating to the relevant period, were toned down or expunged, the modified CRs should be considered as, if the original adverse remarks did not exist at all. 18.3 A Review DPC is required to consider the case again only with reference to the technical or factual mistakes that took place earlier and it should neither change the grading of an officer without any valid reason (which should be recorded) nor change the zone of consideration nor take into account any increase in the number of vacancies which might have occurred subsequently.” 6. In the present case, the post of Superintendent Grade-II was not available on the date of convening of D.P.C. on 10.02.1999 and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mohil was senior to the petitioner in the category of S.C. as well. It is in these circumstances, the review D.P.C. was convened on 15.02.2000. The respondent-State has also warned the person who has failed to bring these facts to the notice of the D.P.C. when it met on 10.02.1999. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mohil, who had filed the Original Application No. 1444 of 1999, has withdrawn the same. Petitioner has not contested the writ petition. In view of the observations made hereinabove, no notice was required to be issued to the petitioner since the decision has been taken on the basis of the recommendations made by the review D.P.C. on 15.02.2000. Petitioner has also not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents, whereby a specific averment has been made that no post of Superintendent Grade-II was available when the D.P.C. has met on 10.02.1999 and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mohil was senior to him. 7. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge September 13, 2010. (bhupender)