IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. : 5574 of 2008 Decided on : 21.10.2010 Radha Ram … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh& Others … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: None. For respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. ________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral). The petitioner has approached this Court for retrospective promotion to the post of Inspector Police. In the reply it is stated at para-5 as follows:- “In reply to this para it is submitted that promotion to the rank of Inspector are governed under Punjab Police Rule 13.1 and 13.15 and 13.16. Rule 13.1 of the Rule ibid provides inter-alia that promotion from one rank to another and from one grade to another in the same rank shall be made by selection tampered by seniority. In order to make selection a D.P.C. is convened. The name of the applicant was duly considered for bringing his name on the promotion list ‘F’ during the year 1995- 96 and 1997 but his name figured low in the merit list drawn by the D.P.C. and thus his name was not recommended for the inclusion in the list ‘F’. It is further submitted that during the year 1995 the applicant secured only 12 marks whereas D.P.C. recommended the names of those S.Is for list ‘F’ who secured 25 or above marks. His name has again considered in the year 1996 but this time also he secured only 12 ½ marks and figured very low in the merit list. Similarly in the year 1997 his name was placed at Sr. No. 72 and only those S.Is were recommended whose names figured upto Sr. No. 45. Therefore, he could not be promoted wehereas his 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 juniors who secured higher marks then the applicant were promoted. It is also submitted here that the criteria adopted by the D.P.C. has also been upheld by this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. (M) 672/95 titled as Jagan Nath Vs. State of H.P. The action of the respondent is legal which is in conformity with the Punjab Police Rule 13.1.” In case the petitioner is still having any grievance, it is open to the petitioner to file a representation before the first respondent. This writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (V.K.Sharma) Judge. 21st October, 2110 Virender/ Pritam