JUDGMENT RAJIV SHARMA, J. - 1. PETITIONER had filed an Original Application bearing OA(M) No. 32 of 1996 before the learned erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. The same was transferred to this Court and was assigned CWP (T) No. 3615 of 2008. It was decided on 7th September, 2010, by this Court and the petitioner was permitted to make a fresh representation to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for redressal of his grievance. 2. THE petitioner made a representation to the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla on 27.09.2010. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies passed orders on 31.05.2011 directing the respondent-Federation to conduct fresh DPC to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Plant Operator w.e.f. 30.05.1995 as per the Service Rules of 1983 of the Federation and if the post of Plant Operator was not vacant/available on 30.05.1995, to consider the case of the petitioner by creating a supernumerary post of Plant Operator. The respondent-Federation assailed the decision of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies before the Secretary (Cooperation) to 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No. the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The appeal was dismissed by the Secretary (Cooperation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 05.05.2012. 3. HOWEVER, the fact of the matter is that in the meantime, a review DPC was convened on 9th August, 2011. The post of Plant Operator was to be filled in on the principle of senioritycummerit. Four officials senior to the petitioner were available for being considered for the post of Plant Operator. Petitioner was at serial No. 10 in the seniority list. All the four senior officials were found fit for promotion in accordance with their service record. In view of this, the case of the petitioner could not be recommended for promotion to the post of Plant Operator. 4. NOW, as far as consideration of the case of the petitioner according to the amended Service Rules 1994 is concerned, the minimum educational qualification for filling up the post of Plant Operator is matriculation. The petitioner was found to be under matric. In view of this, since the petitioner was not possessing essential qualification, his name could not be recommended by the selection committee as per 1994 Rules. Petitioner has only right to be considered. The petitioner was found to be under matric. In view of this, since the petitioner was not possessing essential qualification, his name could not be recommended by the selection committee as per 1994 Rules. Petitioner has only right to be considered. He has been considered, but not found suitable by the duly constituted selection committee. 5. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. No costs.