1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7102/2003 (Jameel Khan Vs. State of Raj. Ors.) Date of order : 7.7.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Counsel. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioner is claiming his promotion on the ground that he is senior than respondent No.4 – Satpal Singh, whose name is at Sl. No.8 of the seniority list (Annexure-2). Further it is contended that the petitioner is entitled for promotion against the quota of the year 2002-03 but his candidature was rejected illegally and the respondent No.4 was promoted who was junior to the petitioner. By way of filing reply, it is contended by Dy. Govt. Counsel that for promotion on the post of Platoon Commandor, the vacancies are required to be filled in by way of promotion and there are two qualification prescribed for promotion; (1) the candidate must possess seven years experience if he is 2 not graduate and (2) the candidate must possess five years experience if he is graduate. Obviously from the admitted facts of the case, it is clear that the respondent No.4 is graduate, therefore, upon his representation his case was considered and he was granted promotion and the petitioner is admittedly not graduate and he was having less experience, therefore, he was not found eligible for promotion against the vacancies of the year 2002-03. Therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected. In this view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner against the vacancies of years 2002-03 was rightly rejected by the respondents. However now petitioner became eligible against the vacancies for the year 2003-04 because, he has completed seven years of service and has acquired the experience as on 1.4.2003, therefore, the petitioner may file representation before the respondents for his claim. Upon filing the same, it is expected that case of the petitioner for promotion will be considered by the respondents in accordance with the law against the vacancy of the year 2003-04. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun