IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11692 of 2008 Decided on : 09.11.2011 ________________________________________________ Mukesh Bhandari … Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. and Anr. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Bhanu Partap Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2. ____________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). On 4.11.2011 the following order was passed by this court in this matter: “On the last date of hearing (27.9.2011), the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was granted time to enable him to obtain instructions whether the petitioner, who was granted extra ordinary leave for five years in order to enable him to seek employment abroad, is interested in prosecuting the present petition or not. However, today the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not be able to get in touch 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 with the petitioner. In such circumstances, when extra ordinary leave was granted in the year 2002 and was to expire in the year 2007, it is directed that respondent No. 1 shall submit a report whether the petitioner has rejoined after expiry of the leave or not. List on 9.11.2011.” 2. However, it is stated on behalf of respondent No.1-State that there is no intimation about rejoining of the petitioner after expiry of the leave. 3. The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii). “(i) That the impugned notification dated 24.11.2003, Annexure A-5 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondent department may be directed to consider the applicant for promotion as Senior Lecturer Civil Engineering with effect from the date respondent No. 2 was so promoted with all consequential benefits. (ii) That if during the pendency of Original Application, Respondent No. 2 or any person junior to the applicant is granted any other or further service benefit/promotion, applicant may also be held entitled to all such benefits with all consequences.” 4. In reply, respondent No. 1 has taken the following stands vide para 3 on merits. “That the impugned notification dated 24.11.2003 issued by the replying respondent No. 1 being legal and just be sustained on the ground that the applicant 3 was found in-eligible at the time of promotion for the post of Senior Lecturer Civil Engineering as per the existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is submitted that the Recruitment & Promotion rules for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer (Civil Engineering) prescribes 5 years service rendered in the feeder post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering. The applicant joined the respondent department against the post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering on 26.03.1998. It is further submitted that consequent upon sanction of Extra Ordinary Leave for five years on his request w.e.f. 11.02.2002 to 10.02.2007 (non- qualifying period) in consonance with the instructions of the Government dated 15.11.1999 (Copy of same is annexed by applicant as Annexure A-2), he was relieved of from the post of Lecturer in Civil Engg. on 08.02.2002 by the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Sundernagar vide his Office Order No. 49 dated 08.02.32002 (copy of office order is placed as Annexure R- 1). As such the applicant did not possess the requisite 5 years qualifying service in the feeder post of lecturer in Civil Engineering and therefore, he had not been found eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer.” 5. The stand on behalf of respondent No. 2 is akin to that of respondent No. 1. 6. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of respondent No. 1-State and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 7. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he may make a detailed representation supported by documents alongwith 4 copy of this judgment to respondent No. 1 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent within further three months in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 8. The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 9, 2011. (sanjeev)