1 S.B. Civil writ petition No. 1034/2010 Bheru Das Vaishnav vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order dated 8.2.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.PS Bhati,for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were 13 posts available for promotion to the post of Clerk from the post of Messenger and petitioner was ranking at S.No.140 in the seniority list. Against 13 posts, total candidates whose seniority was from 1 to 54 were allowed to take part in the selection process and they were invited to take part in the written test which is clear from letter dated 15.1.22009 (Annex.6). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the 13 posts only 3 candidates qualified and they have given appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since all other candidates failed, therefore, petitioner become eligible for promotion and, therefore, his name is required to be considered while granting promotion to the post of 2 Clerk from the candidates holding the post of Messenger. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The facts which have been stated above if are accepted as it is then even the case of the petitioner is that for 13 posts total 54 candidates were eligible for consideration and out of 54, 3 succeeded in getting the promotion. No further process has been initiated for grant of promotion and, therefore, the petitioner cannot have grievance at this stage. If the process for promotion is started and petitioner's case is not included in the zone of consideration even if petitioner is found eligible for consideration by the employer then only petitioner can have any grievance. Therefore, the present writ petition is pre- mature. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage, submitted that he was entitled to the salary of clerk because he was discharging the duties of clerk. This claim of the petitioner of the year 1995 is having no connection with first plea and two separate claims have been raised which amounts mis-joinder of causes of actions and second plea involves several disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided here. In view of the above, reasons, there is no merit in this 3 writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-