1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.731/1995. : : U.B.Mathur & Ors. Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. : : Date of Order 3.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Ms. Snehlata Sharma for Mr. P.K.Sharma for the petitioners. Mr. Vinendra Agarwal for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by five petitioners with the prayer that the respondents be directed to grant promotion to the petitioners in the same way it was allowed to other persons mentioned in para No.7 of the writ petition. 3. Petitioners No.1 & 2 are working on the post of Junior Accountants/Junior Assistants and they are claiming promotion on the post of Assistant/Accountant. According to petitioners they should have been granted such promotion soon after completion of three years of service on the post of 2 Junior Accountant. Petitioners No.3 to 5 are working on the post of Technician Grade-I for whom it is contended that they should have been considered for promotion on the post of Foreman Grade-III after they have completed five years of service on the lower post. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that promotion was granted to Shri Ajay Kumar Mathur on the post of Technician Senior Technician automatically after he completed five years as Technician Grade-I w.e.f. 15.10.1992. Similarly Shri Ram Chandra Yadav was granted promotion in the similar manner by order dated 8.4.1990. Moreover, Shri Dharmendar Swarop and Prashant Kumar Goswami were also promoted on the post of Senior Technician on 25.10.1993, 13.5.1993 respectively. Copies of orders are placed on record. It was argued that when the petitioners earlier approached this Court, their writ petition was dismissed with a direction to the respondents to consider representation of the petitioners. It was argued that action of the respondents are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as they have sought to treat equals unequivocal. 3 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that representation submitted by the petitioner was duly considered and was rejected by order dated 12.12.1994, copy of which was endorsed to the petitioners. In this order, it was clearly given out that due to non-availability of the vacant posts in the grade of Assistant (Accounts) and Foreman Grade-III petitioners could not considered against those posts. Petitioners were granted higher scale of pay in the same post, as recommended by Cadre Review Committee vide order dated 4.10.1994 w.e.f. 19.9.1994. It is, therefore, denied that the petitioners were facing stagnation. Learned counsel invited attention of the Court towards additional affidavit that petitioner No.1 Shri U.B.Mathur and petitioner No.2 Shri N.D. Gupta have been promoted on the post of Senior Assistant Grade-I w.e.f. 26.2.2001 and 20.10.1999 when the posts became available and similarly petitioner No.3 Shri U.P. Singh was promoted as Foreman Grade-I w.e.f. 23.10.1999 and petitioner No.4 Shri A. K. Gupta promoted as Senior Technician Special Grade w.e.f. 19.7.2007 and petitioner No.5 Bishamber Das promoted as Foreman Grade-II w.e.f. 29.12.2996 on availability of posts. 4 6. Consideration of aforequoted arguments and perusal the material on record, clearly show that when the respondents pointedly cited the reason for non-availability of vacant post for rejecting representation of petitioners. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate in what manner they could be promoted if posts were not available. As regards promotion granted to those mentioned in para No.7 of the writ petition, it may be stated that the persons, who were promoted on the post of Technician Grade-III, but it has not been asserted that any of them was junior to the petitioners promoted. Promotion order of such persons has not been assailed and none of them is arrayed as party to the writ petition. No such example has been cited with regard to post of promotion on Assistant (Accountant). A writ of mandamus can be issued only if the petitioners are able to make out a case on merits. The petitioners have not able to show any rule or instruction by which it can be said that they were required to be promoted straightway/automatically without taking recourse to the procedure of convening DPC envisaged in the Rules of Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority Rules of India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd or even when there was no post. 5 I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.H/ 4.