IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21173 of 2001 DATE:03.12.2010 Between: A.Narsing Rao …… Petitioner And The Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Secunderabad …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21173 of 2001 ORDER : The petitioner is working as Safaiwala in the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad. It is alleged that the petitioner was being paid salary of Safaiwala/labourer, but his services were being utilised for doing carpentry work. He seeks writ of Mandamus in this writ petition declaring action of the respondent in extracting work of carpenter from the petitioner and paying salary as Safaiwala as illegal and unconstitutional and to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Carpenter from the post of Safaiwala. 2) The question whether the petitioner’s services are being taken as carpenter or not, is one of fact. It has to be proved by the petitioner by leading evidence on factual aspects. Factual aspects cannot be dealt with in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case the petitioner approaches the appropriate forum and establishes the said fact by leading proper evidence before that forum, then only he will be entitled to the wages as carpenter. Until then, this Court cannot grant any relief in respect of the prayer of the petitioner for wages as carpenter. 3) In so far as the other prayer relating to promotion of the petitioner to the post of Carpenter from the post of Safaiwala is concerned, there is no vested right of promotion in any service on any person in service. No direction can be given for promoting an individual, but a direction can be issued to any authority to consider any person for promotion in case he possesses requisite qualifications, length of service and seniority in the cadre and provided the post of carpenter is promotional post from the post of safaiwala. Even though the petitioner filed copies of several representations made by him to the respondent/cantonment board, he did not file his appointment order to note whether he was regularly appointed after proper selection process as against a cadre post. Simply because the petitioner holds a technical grade certificate, he cannot claim promotion from safaiwala to the post of carpenter. Even though time was taken for production of Service Rules in Cantonment Board which clothe the petitioner with any right to claim promotion from safaiwala to carpenter post, the petitioner could not produce any Rules before this Court in respect thereof. I do not propose to grant any more time for making a roaming search on the aspects which are not placed before this Court. 4) Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 3, 2010 ksh