JUDGMENT DEV DARSHAN SUD, J. 1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge directing the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Pandit. 2. The Hon'ble Single Judge notes that: "3. It is not disputed at the bar that petitioner was fully eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Pandit. The respondent-State circulated a seniority list of the Shastries and undisputedly petitioner, who was placed at Sl. No. 38 was senior to at least four persons to whom the respondent-State has issued orders of promotion as Pandits. Petitioner was not even considered for such promotion." The judgment records as a fact that no reply was filed on behalf of the State to the original application, filed by the petitioner before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, to the allegations made therein, so much so that till December 2009 when an application was moved by the petitioner therein, no reply was filed and pleadings were not completed by the State. It is in these circumstances and taking into consideration the judgment rendered in OA No. 71 of 1986, titled as Dharam Pal vs. State of H.P. & Ors., the Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the petition. It has been urged by learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Vikram Thakur, that the Hon'ble Single Judge has not considered the material fact that the respondent has been appointed as Shastri, Class-III in the Education Department and has never been posted in a Sanskrit College, as also the fact that the incumbent, as mentioned, has been appointed as Pandit as per seniority and the respondent is very junior to him. It is also urged that the Hon'ble Single Judge has not examined the record of the case which would show that the four persons as mentioned by the respondent are junior to him but they were transferred from Government Schools to Sanskrit Pathshalas and continued there, but they have not been promoted to the post of Acharya on the basis of seniority. This is the primary fact urged by the State in support of the appeal. 3. What we find from the record is that the finding of the Hon'ble Single Judge is that the petitioner was at Sr. No. 38 in the seniority list, as held ibid, has not been challenged before us. This is the primary fact urged by the State in support of the appeal. 3. What we find from the record is that the finding of the Hon'ble Single Judge is that the petitioner was at Sr. No. 38 in the seniority list, as held ibid, has not been challenged before us. In this appeal also, it is not disputed before us that the respondent was at Sr. No. 38 in the seniority list from which promotions have been ordered. The allegation that the Hon'ble Single Judge has not examined/inspected the record is not a ground for us to interfere in this appeal. We make this observation keeping in view the fact that no reply to the writ petition was filed by the State in which circumstance it was not possible to have inspected/appraised the record. We therefore find no merit in this appeal, which is rejected. Appeal is rejected.