Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84428 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7019 of 2025 Petitioner :- Har Dayal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyam Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Satyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking promotion from Group D to Group C post taking the plea of promotion quota as provided under the relevant notification issued by the State Government on 22.09.2014 namely Uttar Pradesh Government Department Clerical Cadre Service Rules, 2014, according to which petitioner is entitled to be promoted within 15 per cent quota. 3. It is submitted that the Director, Administration and Development has already written to the Director, Animal Husbandry, U.P., Lucknow that process for promotion from Group D to Group C should be undertaken. 4. At this stage learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner got issued some legal notice through a lawyer to the Additional Director, Grade-II, Animal Husbandry Department, Jhansi Division, Jhansi has made a reply to the legal notice to the effect that as and when the process of promotion would be undertaken the same shall be made in accordance with seniority. 5. In reply it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's representation in this regard is engaging attention of the respondents. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record, I see there to be no unreasonableness in the reply given to the petitioner's lawyer by the Additional Director, Grade- II, Animal Husbandry Department, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated 01.03.2025 in which he himself has observed that as and when the process of promotion will be undertaken, the promotion shall be done strictly in accordance with seniority may be subject to rejection of conflict. 7. In the considered view of the Court, once the department has itself given this reply to the petitioner, I see no justification now to issue any further direction to the respondent in the matter of representation of the petitioner. Petitioner has also not come up with the case that any junior person has been promoted. 8. In such above view of the matter, I consider this petition to be premature at this stage and hence, it is consigned to records. 9. Liberty rest with the petitioner to apply before this Court again in the event seniority is ignored and despite he being senior and eligible to be promoted, his candidature is not considered and ignored promoting any junior candidate. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad