JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioners, Roop Lal, initially filed CWP No.1031 of 2013, before this Court and upon establishment of Learned State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition has now been re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.945 of 2019 seeking the following reliefs:- “12(i) That the respondents be directed to consider and promote the petitioner as Planning Assistant on regular basis w.e.f 13.04.2011 from which date the person junior to him was promoted on regular basis; 12(ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioner as Planning Assistant and allow the petitioner to exercise his option as per FR (22) 1 (a) (i) from the due date with all consequential benefits”. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Tracer Draughtsman on 20.03.1972. He was promoted as Draughtsman in the year 1978 and then as Head Draughtsman in 1995. He was promoted as Circle Head Draughtsman in the year 2006. It is averred that the department issued a Provisional Seniority List of Circle Head Draughtsman issued on 26.03.2011 [Annexure P-1] wherein, the petitioner was shown as senior to Sh. Narinder Kumar and Sh. Chatter Singh. It is averred that on 04.09.2008 [Annexure P-2], the petitioner along with Sh. Narinder Kumar and Sh. Chatter Singh were promoted as Planning Assistant, Class-II on adhoc basis and though these juniors were promoted as Assistant Engineer on regular basis on the recommendation of DPC on 13.04.2011 [Annexure P-3] whereas the petitioner was not promoted as such. Petitioner submitted a representation on 21.04.2011 [Annexure P-4]. It is averred that the State Authorities convened the DPC on 13.06.2011 and promoted the juniors, namely Sh. Narinder Kumar and Sh. Chatter Singh as Planning Assistant vide Notification dated 26.07.2011 [Annexure P-6] with the prayer for promoting him as Planning Assistant from the date juniors were promoted, as such, with all consequential benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES-RESPONDENTS IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 23.03.2013, the Respondents filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 13.09.2013 of Under Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3(i) Perusal of Para-4 of Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was promoted as Planning Assistant on ad-hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement, strictly on the basis of seniority alongwith Narinder Kumar and Chattar Singh vide Notification dated 04.09.2008 [Annexure P-2]. 3(i) Perusal of Para-4 of Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was promoted as Planning Assistant on ad-hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement, strictly on the basis of seniority alongwith Narinder Kumar and Chattar Singh vide Notification dated 04.09.2008 [Annexure P-2]. 3(ii) Reply-Affidavit indicates that the department convened a DPC for promotion to post of Assistant Engineers [Civil] Class-1 [Gazetted] wherein, the feeder cadre Draughtsman namely Shri Narender Kumar and Chatter Singh were considered and promoted as Assistant Engineer on regular basis on 13.04.2011 [Annexure P-3] and since petitioner had not qualified the departmental examination, therefore, being ineligible [as per Rule 23(2) of the Departmental Examination Rules 2007] he was not promoted as Assistant Engineer. 3(iii) Reply-Affidavit further states that after the 85th Constitutional Amendment, the State Authorities, imposed a ban on promotion and after lifting of the ban, the process for regular promotion for post of Planning Assistant was started in the year 2010, by calling Vigilance Clearance Certificates of eligible officers. Even Memorandum for Consideration of Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] was sent to H.P. Public Service Commission on 20.06.2011 and DPC was convened on 13.06.2011. After convening of DPC, the minutes of DPC were sent to department by Secretary of the Commission on 20.06.2011 which were approved by the Competent Authority on 02.07.2011 and the regular promotion as Planning Assistant Class-1 [Gazetted] was notified on 26.07.2011 [Annexure P-6], but, since the petitioner stood retired from government service on 30.06.2011, therefore, he could not be promoted as Planning Assistant on regular basis by the authorities. REBUTTAL-REJOINDER BY PETITIONER : 4. Petitioner filed a rejoinder stating that once DPC for promotion was convened on 13.06.2011 and the petitioner retired on 30.06.2011, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be promoted as Planning Assistant from the date the juniors Sh. Narinder Kumar and Sh. Chatter Singh were promoted as such on 26.07.2011 [Annexure P-6]. In this backdrop, the claim in the writ petition has been reiterated. 5. Heard, Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents- State. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Planning Assistant [Class-1 Gazetted] on regular basis from the date the juniors namely Sh. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents- State. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Planning Assistant [Class-1 Gazetted] on regular basis from the date the juniors namely Sh. Narinder Kumar and Chatter Singh were promoted on 26.07.2011 [Annexure P-6] cannot be accepted, for the following reasons: NOT PASSING DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION RENDERED PETITIONER INELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION: 6(i) Petitioner belongs to a Draughtsman cadre being a Tracer Draughtsman since 20.03.1972 and Draughtsman since 1978 and Head Draughtsman since 1975 and he had served on promotional post of Circle Head Draughtsman since 2006 in Respondent- Department. Pertinently, the incumbents belonging to Draughtsman cadre had promotional avenues to the post of Assistant Engineer [Civil] Class-1 [Gazetted] and also to post of Planning Assistant Class-I [Gazetted]. In addition to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for these posts, the Respondent-State notified the Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examination Rules on 18.04.2007. Rule 2(2)(vi) provides that all other non-Gazetted Officials who have put in not less than 10 years of regular service in connection with the affairs of the State of Himachal Pradesh and whose next promotion or placement as and when takes place shall put them in a Gazetted rank. Further, Rule 21 provides the consequences for failure to pass the examination. Rule 23(2) mandates that a Gazetted Officer irrespective of their age shall get further promotion only after passing the departmental examination. The operative part of Rule 2[2][vi], Rule 21 of Rule 23[2] of Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examination Rules, 1997 as amended vide notification dated 18.04.2007, reads as under Government of Himachal Pradesh Training and F.A Department No. Per (Trg.)-A(40-2/92-II-Part, dated Shimla 171002, 18th April, 2007. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh, Public Services Commission, is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Himachal Pradesh Department Notification No. Per. (Trg)B (12) 40/95, dated the 13th March, 1997, namely :- Short titled and commencement. 1 (i) These rules shall be called the Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examination (First Amendment) Rules, 2007 2. Commencement and Application. (1). These shall come into force from the date of publication in H.P. Rajpatra. (Trg)B (12) 40/95, dated the 13th March, 1997, namely :- Short titled and commencement. 1 (i) These rules shall be called the Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examination (First Amendment) Rules, 2007 2. Commencement and Application. (1). These shall come into force from the date of publication in H.P. Rajpatra. (2) These shall govern the Departmental Examination in respect of :- (i) to (v) not relevant. “(vi) All such other Non-Gazetted officials who have put in not less than 10 years of regular service in connection with the affairs of the State of Himachal Pradesh and whose next promotion or placement as and when it takes place shall put them in a Gazetted rank.” Rule 21. Failure to pass the Departmental Examination. A member of the service shall not be eligible for: (i) proficiency step up/higher scale next due (ii) confirmation in service even after completing of probationary period; and (iii) Promotion to the next higher post. Unless he passes the departmental examination prescribed in these rules; Provided that if there are specific rules governing the conditions of service of a category or a class of officers, the provisions contained in such rules relating to the effect of failure to pass the departmental examinations shall prevail. Provided further that the provision of this Rule shall not be applicable to the category of employees as specified in clause (v) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 2 until they are promoted/appointed against the Gazetted posts. Provided further that any employee failing under the category as specified in clause (v) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 who passes the departmental examination under these rules shall not be required to pass the departmental examination under these rules on his appointment/ promotion to the Gazetted post as specified in clause (iv) of sub-rule (2) of rule-2. Rule 23 Exemption Clause: 23(1). - Not relevant- 23(2). A Gazetted Officer on the attainment of 55 years of age shall not be required to pass the Departmental Examination prescribed under these Rules, as amended from time to time for the purposes of crossing the Efficiency Bar/ Proficiency step up/Higher Scale, next due and confirmation in the service. However, Gazetted Officers irrespective of their age shall get further promotion whenever due only after passing such examination. However, Gazetted Officers irrespective of their age shall get further promotion whenever due only after passing such examination. Provided further that no non- gazetted promote to a gazetted post will be allowed to cross the efficiency bar/proficiency set up higher scale next due and confirmation in service before the age of 50 years until and unless he passes the prescribed departmental examination. In such cases, the same will be treated automatically released only on attaining 50 years of age and not from the due date. xxx… …xxx… ….xxx…. 23 to 27 not relevant. By Order Sd/- S.Vijay Kumar Principal Secretary (Training) to the Government Of Himachal Pradesh.” 6(ii). Perusal of Rule 2(2)(vi) read with Rule 21 and Rule 23(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examination Rules 1997, the passing of departmental examination was a sine qua non for induction or placement in a Gazetted rank and is mandatory for a Gazetted Officer for promotion to further promotion. Thus, once the petitioner had rendered more than 10 years of regular service in Draughtsman cadre [from 1972 till 2006 and thereafter as Circle Head Draughtsman] knowing that his next promotion was to post of Planning Assistant [earlier Class-II Gazetted as per the Rules and Annexure P-2 dated 04.09.2008, which was later named as Class-I Gazetted as in the orders dated 26.07.2011 [Annexure P-6] and/or to the post of Assistant Engineer [Class-1] Gazetted as per the Rules and [Annexure P-3 dated 13.04.2011]. Based on rules, non-passing of departmental examination rendered the petitioner ineligible to be considered for promotion either to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) or to the post of Planning Assistant. Even a perusal of the letter dated 26.08.2013 [Annexure R-1] establishes the ineligibility of the petitioner, for having not passed the departmental examination. While holding DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer [Civil] and issuance of promotion orders of juniors on regular basis on 13.04.2011 [Annexure P-3] and while making promotion to the Planning Assistant on 26.07.2011 [Annexure P-6] the petitioner was not eligible due to non-passing of departmental examination. Reply-Affidavit further establishes the ineligibility of petitioner for promotion to the above posts, for having not passed the departmental examination. Thus, the non-consideration or non-promotion of the petitioner as an Assistant Engineer and thereafter as Planning Assistant [Class-1, Gazetted Post] does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Reply-Affidavit further establishes the ineligibility of petitioner for promotion to the above posts, for having not passed the departmental examination. Thus, the non-consideration or non-promotion of the petitioner as an Assistant Engineer and thereafter as Planning Assistant [Class-1, Gazetted Post] does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Accordingly, the promotion of juniors namely Narender Kumar and Chatter Singh as Assistant Engineer and Planning Assistant on regular basis vide Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-6, when these juniors were eligible and had passed the Departmental Examination and were promoted on the recommendations of DPC convened by State Authorities is legal and valid. Mere seniority will not confer any right for consideration for promotion, when, it is the “seniority amongst eligibles” which is relevant and the petitioner being ineligible has neither any locus nor any right to be considered or to be included in zone of consideration for regular promotion vis-a-vis juniors-eligibles who were considered and promoted to these posts in accordance with rules. Thus the non-promotion of the petitioner in view of his ineligibility as per rules, does not warrant any interference in these proceedings. MERE HOLDING OF DPC CONFERS NO RIGHT: 6(iii). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the DPC for promotion to the post of Planning Assistant on regular basis was convened [on 13.06.2011] before retirement on 30.06.2011 and therefore, non-grant of actual promotion has resulted in depriving the petitioner of pay fixation under FR 22(I)(a)(i) on regular promotion, when the petitioner was working as Planning Assistant on adhoc basis since 04.09.2008 [Annexure P-2]. The above plea of the petitioner is misconceived, when, non-passing of departmental examination had rendered the petitioner ineligible for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on 13.04.2011 [Annexure P-3] and thereafter to the post of Planning Assistant by the DPC dated 13.06.2011 leading to issuance of promotion orders on 26.07.2011 [Annexure P-6]. Merely because the petitioner had been promoted as Planning Assistant on adhoc basis since 04.09.2008 [Annexure P-2] till retirement on 30.06.2011 shall not confer any right for regular promotion as Planning Assistant dehors the Recruitment and promotion Rules and the Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examination Rules, as discussed above. Adhoc service rendered in the capacity of ineligible and unqualified Planning Assistant will not give rise to a claim for regular promotion. Adhoc service rendered in the capacity of ineligible and unqualified Planning Assistant will not give rise to a claim for regular promotion. Even a perusal of adhoc promotion orders dated 04.09.2008 [Annexure P-2] reveals that the adhoc promotion as Planning Assistant was a stop gap arrangement and such arrangement was not to confer any right for regular promotion and when, such adhoc-stop gap arrangement continued due to administrative reasons i.e. due to status-quo ordered on promotion(s) as contained in the Instructions dated 17.01.2008 [Annexure R-III] till 01.05.2010 [Annexure R-II] and after the vacation of status quo the process was initiated for regular promotion, leading to holding of DPC’s for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and Planning Assistant on regular basis. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the name of the petitioner was recommended by DPC held on 13.06.2011, for post of Planning Assistant on regular basis, when, the petitioner was ineligible/not qualified for the post. Further, unless the recommendations of DPC were accepted, till then no right of promotion accrues to an employee, alike the petitioner, who was not eligible for having not passed the departmental examination as mandated by Rules. NON-ASSUMPTION OF ACTUAL DUTIES WILL NOT CONFER RIGHT FOR NOTIONAL PROMOTION: 7. While dealing with similar situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal and Ors. Versus Dr. Amal Satpathi and Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512 has outlined that there is no fundamental right to promotion but an employee has a limited right to be considered for promotion, in accordance with relevant Rules. An employee who is considered for promotion by the DPC cannot seek actual promotion as of right. A consideration and recommendation fructifies on issuance of notification of promotion and not otherwise. The claim of an employee for giving notional promotional benefits, without having actually assumed the charge of posts was negated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), in the following terms. “15. The primary question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement? 18. “15. The primary question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether respondent No.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement? 18. Upon a bare perusal of Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, it is clear that promotion cannot be retrospectively granted after retirement, as it requires the actual assumption of duties and responsibilities of the promotional post. In the present case, since respondent No. 1 superannuated before the final approval of his promotion, he could not have formally assume the charge of the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer. Therefore, although respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion, Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules precludes him from getting the financial benefits of the promotional post without having taken on the responsibilities of the said post i.e. Chief Scientific Officer”. CLAIM FOR PROMOTION IN ABIENCE OF JUNIORS IMPERMISSIBLE: 8. Petitioner is seeking promotion as Planning Assistant on regular basis on the basis of the DPC held on 13.06.2011, leading to the promotion of juniors namely Sh. Narinder Kumar and Sh. Chatter Singh as Planning Assistant on regular basis on 26.07.2011 [Annexure P-6]. The above plea of the petitioner is misconceived, for the reason that the promotion given to the juniors cannot be interfered with behind their back. No adversial order affecting their promotion or in promoting the petitioner above them cannot be passed in their absence. Thus, the non-impleadment of juniors proves to be fatal to the case of petitioner, disentitles him for any relief. NO VESTED RIGHT OF PROMOTION NOR RIGHT FOR PROMOTION FROM DATE VACANCY AROSE: 9. Case needs to be tested from another angle. Claim of petitioner is that he should be promoted as Planning Assistant on regular basis against vacancy of Planning Assistant, on which he was working as Planning Assistant [adhoc] since 04.09.2008 [Annexure P-2] for which DPC was held on 13.06.2011 and even though, the petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2011. Case needs to be tested from another angle. Claim of petitioner is that he should be promoted as Planning Assistant on regular basis against vacancy of Planning Assistant, on which he was working as Planning Assistant [adhoc] since 04.09.2008 [Annexure P-2] for which DPC was held on 13.06.2011 and even though, the petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2011. The above plea of the petitioner in fact- situation of instant case is misconceived, when the petitioner was not eligible and was not qualified for the post of Planning Assistant on date of adhoc promotion and also on the date of his regular promotion and thereafter till retirement on 30.06.2011, which is clear from letter dated 26.08.2013 [Annexure R-1]. Even otherwise, petitioner has no right for promotion from the date vacancy arise or the post of Planning Assistant was created in Respondent-Department. Moreover, the promotion of an employee takes effect from date of issuance of the promotion orders and not from a retrospective date. In these circumstances, mere holding of DPC shall not entitle the petitioner for promotional and pay fixation benefits unless and until the petitioner actually joins which eventuality did not arise due to his ineligibility and non-issuance of promotion orders qua the petitioner. RIGHT OF CONSIDERATION SUBJECT TO SATISGFYING ELIGIBILITY AND CANNOT BE GIVEN: 10. While dealing with the similar fact-situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board and others versus Dharamdeo Das , 2024 SCC Online SC 1768 has held that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date a vacancy occurs. Right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, subject to an employee satisfying the criteria and pre-conditions after following the prescribed procedure under the relevant rules. 19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das , wherein it was observed as follows: “18. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das , wherein it was observed as follows: “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three-Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: ‘4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent- writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her’s fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: ‘Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: ‘Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. An employee can complain of violation of fundamental right of consideration for promotion in case, an employee is eligible under the relevant service rules. Such an infringement cannot accrue to an ineligible or an unqualified employee alike the petitioner, as in the instant case. CONCLUSION 11. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the promotion orders dated 26.07.2011 [Annexure P-6] promoting the juniors as Planning Assistant [Class-I Gazetted] on regular basis does not calls for any interference. Non-promotion of the petitioner, due to his ineligibility, for having not passed the departmental examination [as in Reply/Affidavit and in Annexure R-I, till retirement on 30.06.2011] is based on extant rules and calls for no interference. Non-promotion of the petitioner, due to his ineligibility, for having not passed the departmental examination [as in Reply/Affidavit and in Annexure R-I, till retirement on 30.06.2011] is based on extant rules and calls for no interference. Even claim for notional benefits, without actual assumption of charge of post is impermissible, being contrary to law in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra). Mere adhoc promotion as Planning Assistant since 04.09.2008 [Annexure P-2] or his seniority shall not confer any right for regular promotion which is to be governed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules read with the Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examination Rules, whereby petitioner having not qualified the departmental examination was not eligible, even for consideration. The right of consideration accrues to eligibles and not to ineligibles alike the petitioner. Thus, the non-promotion of the petitioner as Planning Assistant does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. DIRECTIONS: 12. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is dismissed, in the following terms:- (i) Non-promotion of the petitioner as Planning Assistant on regular basis by the DPC convened on 13.06.2011 due to his ineligibility [for having not passed Departmental Examination] does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality; (ii) Claim of petitioner for notional promotion and benefit of same for pay fixation as Planning Assistant under FR 22(I)(a)(i) due to his ineligibility is declined; (iii). Claim of the petitioner for regular promotion as Planning Assistant w.e.f. 13.04.2011 as in relief (i) without DPC is untenable; (iv). Promotion of juniors eligible as Assistant Engineer and thereafter as Planning Assistant, needs no interference and the same is upheld; (v) Parties to bear respective costs. All Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.