1. The petitioner has preferred present petition seeking below mentioned directions:
"21(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Project Officer.
21(B) Your Lordships be pleased to pass the order or direction, directing the respondents to give all the consequence benefits to the petitioner as if the petitioner as if the petitioner was promoted on the higher post before his junior from 6-9-2008."
2. Though the petitioner claims that he should be granted promotion, in the petition, as it stands, any relevant and material as well as specific details which may enable the Court to consider the case of petitioner are not mentioned. Differently put as of now, the petition, as it stands, is bereft of relevant details i.e. details about the required/specified educational qualifications minimum experience and other eligibility criteria required for being eligible for the said post, whether any permanent vacancy exists in the said cadre post, whether the petitioner holds necessary experience and educational qualifications etc. are not mentioned in the petition.
3. Under the circumstances it is not possible to entertain the petition on the basis of the little details mentioned in the petition or rather, lack of relevant and specific details in the petition.
4. Furthermore, it is also not the case of the petitioner that any person junior to him has already been promoted and that is why his right has been adversely affected.
5. All that is mentioned at this stage is that one person who is allegedly junior has been given additional charge of the post of project officer. Action of the respondent of giving additional charge to a junior person cannot be termed as promotion to junior person.
6. Besides this,the respondents have, in the reply affidavit, denied that any person is given promotion on any promotional post depriving the petitioner of his right.
7. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner clarified that all that the petitioner is requesting at this stage is that the representation made by the petitioner may be considered by the respondent competent authority. Learned advocate Mr. Shastri for the petitioner referred to the representation dated 18/09/2008 whereby the petitioner made request that his case for promotion to the post of Project Officer or for charge of Project Officer may be considered because though the representation has been made since September, 2008 any decision on the said representation has not been taken. Learned advocate Mr. Shastri submitted that appropriate direction to the respondent competent authority to consider said representation and take appropriate decision within reasonable time may be passed and that would serve the purpose of present petition.
8. Heard learned advocate Mr. Amin for respondent nos.3 and 4 and learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Learned advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4 submitted that as such the respondent competent authority would not have any objection to decide the representation, however, as stated in the affidavit, as of now nobody is working on the said post.
9. Having regard to the grievance made by learned advocate for the petitioner and submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Amin for respondent nos.3 and 4, it is considered appropriate to dispose of this petition at this stage with the observation that the respondent competent authority may take into consideration the representation made by the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereupon and communicate the decision to the petitioner within reasonable time, preferably within eight weeks from the receipt of certified copy of present order. Direct service is permitted.
10. In view of the above direction and clarification, present petition stands disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) (ila) Top