IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.625 of 2002 Decided on : December 1, 2008 H.P.S.E.B. …Petitioner. Versus Sudhakar Sharma 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 Petitioner : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) This writ petition has been filed by the H.P. State Electricity Board, seeking judicial review of order, dated 20th March, 2001, passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, in Original Application No.763 of 1991, filed by Sudhakar Sharma, respondent No.1, herein. 2. Relevant facts may be noticed. Respondent Sudhakar Sharma had been working as a Junior Engineer with the petitioner-Board. An adverse entry was made in his Annual Confidential Report, for the period from 11th July, 1984 to 31st March, 1985. He made representation for the expunction of those remarks. His representation was accepted in August, 1989. On 2nd March, 1990, writ petitioner promoted two Junior Engineers, respondents No.2 and 3 herein, who were junior to respondent Sudhakar Sharma, in order of seniority, to the posts of Assistant Engineers, on adhoc basis. Respondent Sudhakar Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Sharma represented against the promotion of his juniors, on 27th March, 1990. The same was rejected on 23rd May, 1990. Again, vide order dated 18th February, 1991, Annexure A-9, writ petitioner promoted nine more Junior Engineers, who too were junior to respondent Sudhakar Sharma, on adhoc basis. Respondent Sudhakar Sharma then filed Original Application, challenging both the aforesaid orders of adhoc promotions of his juniors to the posts of Assistant Engineers. 3. Writ petitioner took the stand before the learned Tribunal that the Original Application was barred by time, inasmuch as it had been filed on expiry of one year time prescribed for filing application. On merits, it was stated that the Selection Committee found respondent Sudhakar Sharma unfit for promotion and, therefore, he was superseded. 4. Learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application, holding that there was no adverse entry in the service record of respondent Sudhakar Sharma and one adverse entry, which was made for the period from July 84 to March 85, stood expunged, before the issuance of even the first order of promotion, dated 2nd March, 1990. Also, the Tribunal held that according to the instructions of the petitioner-Board, Annexure A-10, for adhoc promotions, seniority was the main criterion, subject to rejection of the unfit and respondent Sudhakar Sharma, being senior to respondents No.2 to 12, ought not to have been superseded, especially when the only adverse entry made in his Confidential Reports stood expunged in 1989. Learned Tribunal directed the writ petitioner to give promotion …3… as Assistant Engineer, on adhoc basis, to respondent Sudhakar Sharma, from the dates his juniors, i.e. respondents No.2 to 12, had been so promoted. 5. The ground on which order of learned Tribunal has been challenged, in the present writ petition, is that the post of Assistant Engineer, being selection post, respondent Sudhakar Sharma could not have been ordered to be promoted, solely for the reason that he was senior to private respondents. It is also averred that direction for appointment could not have been given and at the most writ petitioner could have been directed to consider the said respondent for promotion. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 7. Even though, it is alleged that the post of Assistant Engineer is selection post, yet it is not denied that the promotions of private respondents No.2 to 12 had been made on adhoc basis. It is also not denied that for adhoc promotions there are instructions, Annexure A-10, which, inter alia, provide for making adhoc appointments on the basis of seniority. That means, seniority is the sole material fact for making adhoc appointments by promotion, subject, however, to rejection of the unfit. No doubt, the writ petitioner took the plea that the Selection Committee found respondent Sudhakar Sharma unfit for promotion, but the learned Tribunal noticed that there was no adverse entry in the Confidential Reports of respondent Sudhakar Sharma and, therefore, his rejection, on the ground of his being unfit, was not justified. …4… 8. In view of the abovestated position, we see no merit in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Writ petition stands disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. December 1, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.