1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6320/2009 Amarchand Teli. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6320/2009 Amarchand Teli. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. Date : 17.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.MS Godara, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner who was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III in pursuance of the appointment order dated 28.3.97, claims that he is senior to one Bhan Kumar Vaishnav and some information has been sought by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) through department about certain declaration of said Bhan Kumar which is apparent from Annex.3 dated 29.12.2008. It is submitted that no such information has been sought from the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6320/2009 Amarchand Teli. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. apprehending that the petitioner's name will not be considered by the DPC for promotion on the post of Teacher Grade-III whereas his junior's name is being considered. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent no.2 on 11.2.2009 for including his name in the list of incumbents who are required to be considered for promotion by the DPC. It is submitted that the petitioner's representation has not been considered and there is every likelihood that the junior to the petitioner will be promoted. It appears that the petitioner has assumed some facts and has approached this Court prematurely. The petitioner presumed that his case will not be considered because his junior's name is under consideration and that some documents were sought from his junior. He is under impression that if his representation is required to be considered, yet will not be considered by the competent authority as well as DPC. From the facts mentioned in the writ petition 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6320/2009 Amarchand Teli. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. as well as documents, I do not find any reason to draw inference as drawn by the petitioner. The department as well as DPC is supposed to act in accordance with the Rules and merely because of calling some documents of some person, who happened to be junior to the petitioner, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner's case, if fit for consideration, will not be considered or his junior will be promoted and the petitioner will not be promoted. In either case, the petitioner's writ petition is based on assumptions as well as without there being any reason of any competent authority. The petitioner is free to challenge the order if it goes against the petitioner. In view of the above, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya