IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 3629 of 2008. Decided on: 19.06.2010. Dina Nath. …Petitioner. -Versus- Secretary (Education), Government of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate vice Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he was fully eligible and qualified for the post of Principal as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The case of the respondents, precisely is that since a case F.I.R. No.56/93, under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner, he could not be considered for promotion. The respondent-State was directed by this Court on 23rd April, 2010 to ascertain about the out-come of the criminal case pending against the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has informed the Court that the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned C.J.M., Kinnaur vide judgment dated 25th March, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2000. It is represented that the judgment dated 25th March, 2000 has attained finality. Petitioner was at Sr. No. 256 of the seniority list of Headmasters. The persons junior to him were promoted vide notification dated 27th March, 1996. Thereafter, vide notification dated 21.06.1996, the persons junior to him were also promoted and he was not considered. The case of the respondent-State is that the petitioner could not be considered for promotion to the post in question in view of a criminal case pending against him. Petitioner, as noticed above, was acquitted on 25th March, 2000. In these circumstances, his case was required to be considered for promotion. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal from the due date with all consequential benefits. The needful be done within a period of ten weeks from today. It is made clear that the fact that the petitioner stood retired from service will not come in the way of his seeking monetary benefits after his promotion. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge June 19, 2010. (bhupender)