Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 346 (HP)

Satish Rathore v. State of H. P.

2002-12-19

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, W.A.SHISHAK

body2002
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 31.8.2000 of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application No. 89/87 of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of H.P.H.S. Grade-I from the post of H.P.H.S. Grade-II in the State Health Services. 2. The Petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Medical Officer/ General Duty Officer Grade-II (GDO-II) on ad hoc basis in the Himachal Health Services and he joined his duties as such on 12.8.1978. In May, 1982 the services of the Petitioner were regularized by the State Government after he successfully qualified the examination conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. 3. The State Government framed Rules known as Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examinations Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Examinations Rules, 1976") under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 21 relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy reads as under: 21. Failure to pass the Departmental Examination. If a member of the service fails to pass the departmental examination within his probation period or within 2 years of the notification of these rules, whichever is later, he shall not be eligible to (i) cross the efficiency bar next due; (ii) Confirmation in the service; and (iii) Promotion to the next higher post: Provided that if a member of the service becomes otherwise eligible for promotion, within the period mentioned above, he shall be considered for promotion and if otherwise found fit shall be provisionally promoted subject to his passing the departmental examination. He may be reverted if he fails to pass the same: Provided further that if there are specific rules governing the conditions of service of a category or a class of officers, the provisions contained in such service rules relating to the effect of failure to pass the departmental examination shall prevail. 4. According to the Petitioner, he applied for permission for taking up the departmental examinations which was allowed by the department and accordingly he appeared in the examination in April, 1982 conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Board of Departmental Examination. 4. According to the Petitioner, he applied for permission for taking up the departmental examinations which was allowed by the department and accordingly he appeared in the examination in April, 1982 conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Board of Departmental Examination. The Petitioner was declared as qualified in all the papers prescribed for his category and his result was declared which was conveyed to the Director, Health and Family Welfare Department, Himachal Pradesh by the Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Board of Departmental Examination, a copy thereof was forwarded to the Petitioner vide communication dated August 29,1983 placed on record as Annexure P-l. 5. The Government of Himachal Pradesh framed Rules for the Recruitment and Conditions of service of persons appointed to the Himachal Pradesh Health Services known as Himachal Pradesh Health Services Rules, 1974 (for short "Services Rules, 1974"). Rule 9(2) of the Rules reads as under: 9(2): Himachal Pradesh Health Services Grade-l: Vacancies of H.P.H.S. Grade-I shall be filled in on the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee, by promotion, on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority, of persons, holding posts in the H.P.H.S. Grade-II who have rendered not less than five years service in that grade: Provided that if the Government is satisfied that suitable officers are not available in the H.P.H.S. Grade-II for promotion to the post in the H.P.H.S. G-ade-I, such post may be filled in by direct recruitment in the manner specified in the second schedule. Rule 11 of the said Rules deals with probation, which reads as under: 11. Probation. (a) Persons appointed to the service by direct recruitment or by promotion shall be on probation for a period of two years. (b) The Government may extend the period of probation specified in Clause(a). (c) If on the expiration of the period of probation referred to in Clause (a) or any extension thereof under Clause (b), as the case may be, the Government is of the opinion that a person is not fit for retention in that post, it may discharge or revert him to his substantive post or pass such orders as it deems' fit: Provided that the competent authority, making an order of discharge or reversion under this rules, shall, after offering an opportunity for being heard, record reasons for doing so. (d) During the period of probation the candidate shall undergo such training as may be prescribed by the Government. (d) During the period of probation the candidate shall undergo such training as may be prescribed by the Government. Rule 18-A dealing with Departmental Examination, reads as under: 18-A. Departmental Examination. (a) Every member of the service shall pass a departmental examination as prescribed in the Departmental Examination Rules within the probation period or within two years from the 15th May, 1976, whichever is later failing which he shall not be eligible to: (i) Cross the efficiency bar next due; (ii) Confirmation in the service; and (iii) Promotion to the next higher post: Provided that if a member becomes otherwise eligible promotion, within the period mentioned above, he shall be considered for promotion and if otherwise found fit shall be promoted provisionally subject to his passing the departmental examination. He may be reverted if he fails to pass the same: Provided further that an officer who has qualified the examination in whole or in part prescribed under any other rules before the notification of these rules, shall not be required to qualify the whole or in part of the examination as the case may be: Provided further that an officer for whom no departmental examination was prescribed prior to the notification of these rules and who has attained the age of 45 years on the 1st of March, 1976 shall not be required to qualify the departmental examination prescribed under these rules. (b) An Officer on promotion to a higher post in his direct line of promotion shall not be required to pass the aforesaid examination if he has already passed the same in the lower Gazetted post. (c) The Government may, in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, grant in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be reduced to writing, exemption in accordance with the Departmental Examination Rules, to any class or category of persons from the departmental examination in whole or in part. 6. According to the claim of the Petitioner, the Respondent State Government has wrongly promoted 132 members of the HPHS Grade-II to HPHS Grade-I in violation of the Service Rules, 1974 and Examination Rules, 1976 in the year 1983 and again in the successive years i.e. 1984, 1985 and 1986 who had not passed the departmental examination and as such they were ineligible to be promoted to the higher post. All the members of the services who were promoted to Grade-I posts were impleaded party Respondents in the proceedings filed by the Petitioner before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Petitioner had been protesting against the promotion of ineligible Medical Officers from Grade-II Officer to Grade-I Officer by submitting representations dated 25.8.1983 and 11.11.1983, copies of such representations were placed on record, but the claim of the Petitioner has not been considered by the Respondent State. On these premises the Petitioner filed the Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal seeking inter alia the following relief's: (a) Directions be issued to the Respondent to promote the applicant from the Himachal Pradesh Health Services Grade-II post to the Himachal Pradesh Health Services Grade-I post with effect from the earliest date when the promotions from the Himachal Pradesh Health Services Grade-II posts to the Himachal Pradesh Health Services Grade-I were made after August, 1983. (b) The promotions of the Respondents No. 2 to 132 may kindly be quashed and the notification granting relaxation from passing departmental examination be declared as illegal and be quashed. (c) The Respondent No. 1 be directed to produce the relevant records of the promotions made from the Himachal Pradesh Health Services Grade-II posts to the Himachal Pradesh Health Services Grade-I posts after August, 1983 till date. (d) The Respondent No. 1 be directed to pay the costs of this application to the applicant, in the interest of justice. (e) Pass any other order or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice in favour of the applicant. 7. Counter to the application of the Petitioner was filed by the Deputy Secretary (Health) on behalf of the Respondent State whereas private Respondents whose promotions were challenged by the Petitioner did not choose to appear nor did they contest the application before the Tribunal. 7. Counter to the application of the Petitioner was filed by the Deputy Secretary (Health) on behalf of the Respondent State whereas private Respondents whose promotions were challenged by the Petitioner did not choose to appear nor did they contest the application before the Tribunal. In the reply the stand of the State Government was that as per the H.P. Health Services Rules, 1974 promotion from Class-II Officers to Class-I shall be done on the basis of merit-cum-seniority subject to the passing of departmental examination and the Petitioner being a junior in the gradation list of Grade-II was not in the zone of consideration would not automatically become entitle for promotion on qualifying the departmental examination unless other conditions laid down in the HPHS Rules, 1974 are fulfilled by him. It was stated that all the promotions were done strictly on the basis of merit-cum-seniority as all the private Respondents had fulfilled all other conditions for promotion to the post of HPHS Grade-I and the HPHS Grade-II doctors of the general side were given exemption from passing departmental examination under Rule 19 of the HPHS Rules, 1974 and mere passing of the departmental examination by the Petitioner will not give him any right to claim promotion to the next higher post when he was quite junior in the seniority list of HPHS Grade-II doctors nor his name would fall within the zone of consideration. According to the stand of the State Government, qualifying the departmental examination is only one of the conditions for becoming eligible for consideration for promotion and not the sole criteria to give him right for promotion. It appears from the order of the Tribunal that supplementary affidavit dated 22.6.1996 was filed by Mrs. Purnima Chauhan, Deputy Secretary in which it was stated that notification of the State Government dated 30.11.1984 giving general relaxation to the doctors from passing the departmental examination was issued with the approval of counsel of Ministers and copy thereof was endorsed to the H.P. Public Service Commission and, therefore, it was not necessary to take approval of the H.P. Public Service Commission. Mrs. Mrs. Purnima Chauhan filed another supplementary affidavit pursuant to directions dated 25.6.1996 issued by the Tribunal in which it was stated that H.P. Public Service j Commission did not agree with the proposal of the Health and Family Welfare Department for the grant of relaxation from passing the departmental examination by the Doctors. It was also slated that when the H.P. Public Service Commission did not agree with the proposal of the Health and Family Welfare Department from exempting the doctors from passing the departmental examination the proposal was placed before the Council of Ministers and the same was approved and on the basis of the decision so taken by the Council of Ministers notification exempting the Doctors from passing the departmental examination was issued by the State Government and since the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was consulted prior to placing the matter before the Council of Ministers for final decision there was no need to consult the Public Service Commission again. The Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal rejected the application of the Petitioner by giving the following reasons: (i) the applicant may have passed the departmental examination but he was very junior GDO-II and therefore, he could not have come in the zone of consideration; (ii) the passing of the departmental examination by itself does not entitle the applicant for further promotion as GDO Grade-I; (iii) the Government had powers to relax the Rules in consultation with the H.P. Public Service Commission and notification dated 30.11.1984 exempting the doctors from passing the departmental examination before their promotion as GDC) Grade-I and after promotion, the doctors would have to pass only one paper i.e. Financial Rules and that too, was to be qualified only when they were sent for training in Himachal Pradesh Institute of Public Administration (HIPPA). Since, they were not sent for training, as such, they could not have passed the paper in Financial Rules. 8. Since, they were not sent for training, as such, they could not have passed the paper in Financial Rules. 8. Now the Petitioner has challenged the correctness and validity of the impugned order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in this writ petition on the following grounds: (i) that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the settled position of law that only eligible persons are entitled to be brought on the zone of consideration and the seniority is relevant only amongst the eligible persons; (ii) that even if for arguments shake the relaxation dated 30.11.1984 Annexure P-6 has been legally issued by the Respondent State the ' same will have prospective effect to the vacancies occurring after 30.11.1984 and the vacancies prior to this date are required to be filled in accordance with the provisions regarding passing of departmental examination as contained in R&P Rules and Departmental Examination Rules. 9. Thus, the Petitioner inter alia prays for the following relief's: (i) that impugned decision dated 31.8.2000 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned HP. State Administrative Tribunal may be quashed and set-aside; (ii) that Respondent No. 1 may be directed to consider the Petitioner against the available vacancy of GDO Grade-I occurring prior to 30.11.1984 and consequently he may be promoted from the earliest date after the Petitioner became eligible as per R&P Rules with effect from 11.8.1983; (iii) that the Petitioner may be granted appropriate seniority amongst the private Respondents and may also be considered for further promotions on due dates in accordance with rules; (iv) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted; (v) Costs of the petition may also be awarded. 10. During the pendency of the writ petition, names of Respondents 19, 49, 51, 71, 76, 83, 91, 97, 105 and 127 were ordered to be deleted at the request of the Petitioner whereas the other Respondents despite service of the notice of writ petition have not chosen to appear in person or through the Advocate to defend their claim. 11. During the pendency of the writ petition, names of Respondents 19, 49, 51, 71, 76, 83, 91, 97, 105 and 127 were ordered to be deleted at the request of the Petitioner whereas the other Respondents despite service of the notice of writ petition have not chosen to appear in person or through the Advocate to defend their claim. 11. Counter to the writ petition has been filed by the State on the affidavit of Shri Ashok Sharma, Joint Secretary (Health) in which it is stated that GDO-II grade doctors were rightly promoted to the post of GDO-I vide notification dated 31.3.1982 in terms of the provisions of R&P Rules and other relevant instructions on the subject matter. It is also stated that doctors who were seniors to the Petitioner in the grade were promoted as the Petitioner was nowhere in the zone of consideration at any stage and the condition of passing the departmental examination for promotion to the next higher post is pre-requisite for consideration to the next higher post but not a condition to propone the zone of consideration in the interest j of Petitioner merely on the basis that he had passed the departmental examination. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was not found in the zone of consideration when DPC was convened for promotion to GDO-I. 12. In this petition, it was contended by the learned Counsel for. the Petitioner that the Petitioner admittedly qualified the departmental, examination in the year 1983 after putting in five years service in the HPHS Grade-II and as such he was entitled to promotion to HPHS Grade-I post as per Rules 18-A of HPHS Rules, 1974 whereas other members of the service who were/are parties in these proceedings did not qualify the departmental examination till general relaxation was given by the State. Government vide notification dated 30th November, 1984 (Annexure P- 6) and the operation of the said notification will apply prospectively and the vacancies prior to 30.11.1984 were required to be filled up in accordance with the provisions regarding passing of departmental examination as contained in HPHS Rules, 1974 Rules and Departmental Examination Rules, 1976. Government vide notification dated 30th November, 1984 (Annexure P- 6) and the operation of the said notification will apply prospectively and the vacancies prior to 30.11.1984 were required to be filled up in accordance with the provisions regarding passing of departmental examination as contained in HPHS Rules, 1974 Rules and Departmental Examination Rules, 1976. He next contended that the private Respondents have not as of today qualified the departmental examinations and Respondent State" is favoring them by giving them further promotion to the next higher post without adhering to the provisions of the statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 13. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted that passing of the departmental examination by the GDO-II; doctors for promotion to the post of GDO-I is one of the criteria for considering the eligibility of the members of the service and it cannot be said to be \ a sole criteria unless the member of the service qualifies the essential criteria of merit-cum-seniority He next submitted that all the private Respondents \ herein were promoted to HPHS Grade-I by the State Government vide \ notification dated 31st March, 1982 (Annexure P-4/I) by giving relaxation \ from passing the departmental examination as per the provisions of Rule 18-A of the Services Rules/1974 after consultation with the H.P. Public Service Commission as those doctors were in large numbers and were senior to the Petitioner in gradation/seniority list of HPHS Grade-II. He next contended that the Petitioner had admittedly qualified the depart-: mental examination in the year 1983 whereas the Respondents were promoted under notification dated 30th November, 1984 (Annexure P-6) as their promotion could not be withheld for longer period for not passing departmental examination. The learned Advocate General has sought to support the order of the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. 15. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was a member of HPHS Grade-II service and was junior to the private Respondents in the gradation list. He appeared in the departmental examination in the year 1983 as per the conditions contained in Departmental Examination Rules, 1976. 15. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was a member of HPHS Grade-II service and was junior to the private Respondents in the gradation list. He appeared in the departmental examination in the year 1983 as per the conditions contained in Departmental Examination Rules, 1976. On bare perusal of Rule 21 extracted hereinabove of the Examination Rules, 1976/ it is clear and unambiguous that a member of the service shall not be eligible to (i) cross the efficiency bar next due; (ii) confirmation in service even after completion, of probation period; and (iii) promotion to the next higher post if a member fails to pass the Departmental Examination as prescribed in the Rules. Similarly under Rule 9(2) of the Services Rules, 1974 vacancies of HPHS Grade-I shall be filled in on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee by promotion on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority of persons holding posts in the HPHS Grade-II who have rendered not less than five years service in that grade. under the above extracted Rule 18-A every member of the service shall have to pass a departmental examination as prescribed in the Departmental Examination Rules within the probation period or within two years from 15th May, 1976 whichever is later and if such members fails to qualify the departmental examination, he shall not be eligible to (i) cross the efficiency bar; (ii) confirmation in the service; and (iii) promotion to the next higher post. However, under Clause (c) of Rule 18-A discretion is vested with the State Government to grant exemption in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be reduced in writing to any class or category of persons from passing the departmental examination in whole or in part in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. 16. It is in this background of the factual and legal position that we have examined the matter in dispute. The Petitioner having qualified departmental examination in the year 1983 and he had rendered more than five years of service in Himachal Pradesh Health Services Grade-II, was admittedly eligible to be considered for promotion to the HPHS Grade-I post in August, 1983 and or thereafter against the vacancy if any had arisen. The Petitioner having qualified departmental examination in the year 1983 and he had rendered more than five years of service in Himachal Pradesh Health Services Grade-II, was admittedly eligible to be considered for promotion to the HPHS Grade-I post in August, 1983 and or thereafter against the vacancy if any had arisen. The Respondents who have not qualified the departmental examination were promoted by the State Government on the recommendation of the DPC and in consultation with the H.P, Public Service Commission to HPHS Grade-I by notification dated 31st March, 1982 (Annexure P-4/ 1). The members of HPHS Grade-II were promoted to the posts of HPHS Grade-I in the year 1982 when the Departmental Promotion Rules, 1976 and Health Services Rules, 1974 were admittedly in force. Lateron the State Government by notification dated 30th November, 1984 (Annexure P-6) ordered that all doctors covered under HPHS shall be allowed to cross the efficiency bar and confirmation in service without passing departmental examination. It was further ordered that promotion of doctors covered under HPHS Rules would not be withheld for not passing Departmental Examination and after promotion the doctors would have to pass only one paper i.e. Financial Rules after undergoing training in HIPPA within a period of one year. They were however exempted to appear in technical and Hindi papers. This notification has to be read having become effective from 30th of November, 1984 and it cannot be said that it has been enforced prior to the said date. The Respondents admittedly have not qualified the departmental examination of one paper i.e. Financial Rules even after the notification dated 30th November, 1984 (Annexure P6). It is observed by the learned Vice-Chairman of the State Administrative Tribunal in his order that the matter for the grant of exemption from passing the departmental examination by the State Government was taken up with the H.P. Public Service Commission but the Public Service Commission did not agree to the proposal of the State Government and thereafter, the proposal of the State Government was placed before the Council of Ministers and on the basis of the decision of the council of Ministers notification dated 30th November, 1984 was issued. It is apparent that the Tribunal has not adverted to the effect of Rule 21 (in) of the Departmental Examination Rules, 1976 and Rule 9(2) as well as Rule 18-A (iii) of the H.P. Health Services Rules, 1974 while deciding the application of the Petitioner. The passing of the departmental examination is one of the essential requirements of the Departmental Examination Rules and H.P. Health Services, Rules and both the Rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The relaxation can be given by the State Government in consultation with the Public Service Commission only in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be reduced to writing. In our considered opinion, it only means, the qualifiers at the Examination and Exemptees would form one coherent class as eligible for promotion to be considered when any vacancy arises, on the basis of the principle of merit with due regard to seniority of persons holding posts in the H.P.H.S. Grade-Il who have rendered not less than five years service in that grade to the vacancy of H.P.H.S. Grade-I. 17. The State Government again issued a notification dated 26.12.1995 mark Annexure P-4/2 to the writ petition promoting the Respondents to the HPHS Grade-I on the recommendations of the review DPC which was held pursuant to orders dated 7.6.1993 of the Administrative Tribunal in the matters of T As 593/86, 540/86 and 541/86 w.e.f. 31.3.1982. All the private Respondents were promoted by the State Government in the year 1982 presumably by giving relaxation to them under Rule 18A(c) of the Health Services Rules, 1974 as well as Rule 21 of the Examination Rules. Second proviso to Rule 21 provides that if there are specific Rules governing the conditions of Service of a category or a class of Officers the provisions contained in such service Rules relating to the effect of failure to pass the departmental examination shall prevail. In the present case Rule 13A of the Health Services Rules, 1974 deals with Departmental Examination. Rule 18-A of Health Services Rules, 1974 confers powers on the Government to grant, in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be reduced in writing, exemption in the Departmental Examination Rules to any class or category of persons from passing the departmental examination in whole or in part in consultation with the H.P. Public Service Commission, for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. The object and purpose of conferring this power on the Government appears to us to mitigate undue hardship in any particular case. 18. It appears from notification dated 12th April, 1982 Annexure-A attached to Annexure P-4/A that the private Respondents were promoted to H.P.H.S. Grade-I in order of merit. 19. We have already examined the ambit and scope of the relevant provisions of the Examination Rules, 1976 and also the Health Service Rules, 1974. The private Respondents were promoted as HPHS Grade-I from HPHS Grade-II in the year 1982 when admittedly they had not qualified the departmental examination nor the Petitioner also could qualify the same. It was only in August, 1983 when the Petitioner qualified the departmental examination. 20. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was the only eligible candidate for promotion to HPHS Grade-I having regard to the qualifications prescribed under Health Services Rules, 1974 and since the private Respondents did not qualify the departmental examination they were ineligible to be considered for promotion, therefore, the action of the State ignoring the Petitioner for promotion is arbitrary and against the provisions of the Rules. In R. Prabha Devi and Ors. v. Government of India, (1988) 2 SCC 233, relied upon by the learned Counsel, for the Petitioner, it has been held that a person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualification prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion and seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Further, it is observed that seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can over-ride it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. 21. In the present case as noticed, above the private Respondents were promoted by the State Government by notification dated 31st March, 1982 from the post of HPHS Grade-II to HPHS Grade-I on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and in consultation with the H.P. Public Service Commission presumably by giving relaxation to them from passing the departmental examinations and admittedly the Petitioner also did not pass the said examination and as per the decision of the State Government promotion was made in order of merit. It is no doubt true that the Petitioner has acquired one of the eligibility criteria of passing Departmental Examination in August, 1983, but the other conditions of merit with due regard to seniority has to be followed by 4he State Government while giving promotions to H.P H.S Grade-I from H.P.H.S. Grade-ii as provided under Services Rules, 1974. 22. The State Government has granted relaxation to the private Respondents exempting them from passing the departmental examination by notification dated 31st March, 1982 (Annexure P-4/1). The Petitioner was not considered to be promoted to HPHS Grade-I in the year 1982 being junior in the cadre and the private Respondents as per notification dated 12th April, 1982 (Annexure-A attached to notification Annexure P-4/A) were promoted in order of merit as per Rule 9(2) of H.P. Health Services Rules, 1974. The operation of notification dated 30th November, 1984 (Annexure P6) whereby it is ordered that promotion of Doctors covered under HPHS Rules would not be withheld for not passing departmental examination will have prospective effect and general relaxation will not apply to those H.P.H.S. Grade-II who did not qualify the departmental examination in the year 1983 when the Petitioner had qualified the same. under notification dated 30th November, 1984 (Annexure P-6) it was further ordered that after promotion, the doctors would have to pass only one paper i.e. Financial Rules paper after training in Himachal Institute of Public Administration, Fair Lawn, Mash bra within a period of one year and they will not however have to appear in Technical and Hindi papers. In that view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the order dated 31.8.2000 (Annexure P-7) recorded by the State Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application of the Petitioner is erroneous and unsustainable. 23. No other point was urged before us by the learned Counsel for the parties; 24. For the aforesaid reasons emerging from the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order dated 31.8.2000 (Annexure P-7) passed by State Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set-aside. 23. No other point was urged before us by the learned Counsel for the parties; 24. For the aforesaid reasons emerging from the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order dated 31.8.2000 (Annexure P-7) passed by State Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set-aside. We issue the following directions: (1) The State Government shall consider the claim of the Petitioner for promotion from HPHS Grade-II to HPHS Grade-I against the available vacancy occurring from August, 1983 and thereafter when the Petitioner passed departmental examination if he is otherwise found eligible on the basis of the H.P. Health Services Rules, 1974 and H,P. Departmental Examination Rules, 1976 along with other HPHS Grade-II doctors who did not pass the departmental examination when they were promoted in the year 1983 and thereafter; (2) If the Petitioner is found eligible to be promoted as HPHS Grade-I, he shall be granted all consequential benefits as found permissible to him according to the Rules; and (3)The case of the Petitioner for promotion shall be considered by the Respondent-State within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ order. 25. In view of our aforesaid findings, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions. Costs on the parties.