1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3020/2010 Nawal Kishore Sharma vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3096/2010 Suresh Kmar Chura vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 12.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. MC Purohit for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the controversy is one and the same, therefore, these aforesaid writ petitions are decided by this common order and the facts of SBCWP No.3020/2010 are taken. The petitioner was appointed as Helper in the office of the PHED in the year 1985. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking relief of his promotion to the post of Clerk w.e.f. 1.4.1988 by filing the writ petition in the year 2010. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner since the day of appointment is working on the post of clerk. It is submitted that Government itself has decided to regularize various employees and in fact, the screening committee was constituted and, thereafter, some juniors to the petitioner have already been given appointment on the appropriate post like appointment on 2 the post of LDC. It is also submitted that this court in SBCWP No.1453/1996- Tara Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, decided on 8.10.2009 (by me) allowed the writ petition of the petitioner and respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners of that writ petition in accordance with the notification dated 21.12.1989. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts o the case as well as the judgment delivered in the case of Tara Chand (supra). In the case of Tara Chand in response to the show cause notice, the respondents admitted the facts and in that case, the Government policy of screening was going on wherein the petitioner's case was not under consideration, therefore, this court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner also in accordance with the notification dated 21.12.1989. The facts of this case reveal that in this case screening committee screened the candidates and petitioner has placed on record the copy of the office order dated 15.4.2007 and according to the petitioner that screening committee promoted juniors to the petitioner. It is not a case where no screening committee was constituted for the purpose of giving benefits to the employees,but it is a case where the petitioner has been denied promotion by the application of mind by the screening committee. Hence if the petitioner had any grievance, he may challenge the order dated 15.4.2007 and 3 that could have been done before appropriate authority where the disputed fact could have been examined about the entitlement of the petitioner on the promotional post and that from the year 1986. In the year 2010 for redressal of these question of facts writ petition cannot ben entertained. In view of the above, the writ petitions of the petitioner are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail alternative remedy. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. cpgoyal/-