IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 6027 of 2008. Decided on: 16th August, 2010. Neeraj Maheshwari. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and anr. ……Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “(i) That the Respondent-Department may be directed to appoint the applicant as DPE (School Cadre) from the date of initial appointment of other juniors of the applicant appointed as such, with all consequential benefits of seniority, pay and allowances etc.” It is stated in para 6(iv) of the reply as follows: “(iv) That in reply to this para it is submitted that the applicant is not aware of the method of recruitment to the post of DPE and perhaps has misunderstood and misconstrued the same. Be it further submitted that the method of recruitment to the post of DPE set out in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution in consultation with Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission envisages that 75% posts will be filled up 2 by promotion from amongst the Physical Training Instructors working on regular basis. The seniority of the PTIs who are eligible will be maintained with reference of the incumbent’s date of joining in the cadre of PTI on regular basis. The rest of 25% vacancies will be filled up by direct recruitment. The name of the applicant was recommended/sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange in terms of requisition placed by the replying respondent, but he neither appeared before the interview board nor any departmental person has directed him that the inservice PETs cannot be appointed as DPE against batchwise quota. Therefore, under these circumstances it is out of question to consider the applicant to the post. Apart from whatever is stated above, it must be submitted that the promotion to the post of DPE has not yet been made. It is reiterated that whenever the promotion to the post of DPE is made in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, the case of the applicant on his turn will be considered if otherwise found eligible. In view of this, no injustice has been done to the applicant. Rest of the averments are meaningless and merely apprehensions.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the only ground he did not appear before the interview Board once, he cannot be debarred for ever from participating in the batchwise or direct recruitment. We do not find any basis for such apprehension. As and when vacancy arises for batchwise or direct recruitment, in case the petitioner is otherwise eligible, he has to be considered and he cannot be ignored on the only ground that he had failed to appear in an 3 earlier chance or on the ground that he stands to have another chance for promotion. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 16th August, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge.