Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112214 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23478 of 2007 Petitioner :- Asharam Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Nath Pandey,Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.B.Dixit,P.S. Baghel Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Shri Arpit Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 21.04.2007 passed by the third-respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the Class-III posts as well as questioning the appointment of ninth- respondent vide order dated 08.11.2006. 3. The petitioner was appointed on Class-IV posts in a substantive vacancy vide order dated 09.01.1985. As there are 11 sanctioned posts of Class-III in the fifth-respondent Institution and two posts fell vacant after retirement of one Rajendra Kumar Johri as he died on 02.06.2001 and one Indra Pal Mishra, who was working in Class-III posts and was also retired on 28.02.2006. In view of the two vacancies, as per the amended provisions 20 percent is meant for promotional candidates. Accordingly, the two posts is earmarked for promotional quota, hence the petitioner has made an application as he was fully qualified to be considered for the post of Class-III, but surprisingly the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order and considered the ninth-respondent through direct recruitment in Class-III posts. 4. After notice, respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which they have not denied with regard to promotional quota in respect of two posts. But surprisingly they have stated that pursuant to the notification issued by the fifth- respondent, the petitioner have also participated in the said selection process and after that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to consider his case for promotion. Further, they have stated that the said posts is meant for promotional quota, as already two persons have been promoted, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, on instructions has submitted that still there is one post vacant in the fifth- respondent Institution which can be accommodated by way of promotion to the petitioner and further submitted that the petitioner is also due for retirement as he is on the verge of attaining the age of retirement. 6. Considering the said submissions the present writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents particularly third- respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if the vacancy is available and if the petitioner is otherwise qualified for the said post, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation giving all the relevant material to the notice of third-respondent within a period of two weeks and third- respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner based on the seniority and eligibility and take appropriate decision within a period of two months, thereafter. It is made clear while considering the case of the petitioner in the fresh representation the respondents may not take the observations made in the earlier order dated 21.04.2007. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad