IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.:2158/2008 Decided on:16.4.2009 Jagat Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioner : Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The precise case of the petitioner is that he has been superseded by respondents No.4 and 5 for the post of Block Primary Education Officer. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that as per final seniority list of Junior Basic Trained Teachers as it stood on 30.9.1979, his client was at Sr. No. 11 and respondents No.4 and 5 were at Sr. Nos. 13 and 15 respectively. Sh. Kameshwar Gupta was promoted as Block Primary Education Officer in the month of November, 1991. The petitioner had assailed the promotions of respondents No.4 and 5 by way of OA No. 1258/1992. The same was directed to be treated as a 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 representation to the Director Primary Education. The representation was rejected on 9.1.1993. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that his client could not be superseded by the respondents for the post of Block Primary Education Officer. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the roster point reserved for the Scheduled Caste category was consumed after the promotion of Sh. Anant Ram. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has initially argued that his client was not appointed against reserved post and should have been considered against the general post as per seniority list i.e. Annexure A-1. However, it is evident from the pleadings of the parties that he himself has requested for considering his case against the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. Respondents No.4 and 5 have been considered for promotion according to their points. The petitioner could not be considered for the post in question since the point reserved for Scheduled Caste was already consumed by Sh. Anant Ram. The Director Primary Education has rightly come to a conclusion that in the absence of any vacancy, the case of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion to the post in question. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has denied that respondents No.4 and 5 had been considered against the reserved category. In fact, according to him these persons were appointed against the roster point assigned for general category. The petitioner has also not stated anywhere in the pleadings that he was not appointed against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste. 3 Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 16.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*