IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 688 of 2009 (S/S) Rohtash Kumar Sharma and others ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Shri Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for respondent No.1. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Shri Gopal Narain, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri K.C. Tiwari, the learned Brief Holder for respondent No.1 and Shri D.S. Patni, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The petitioners’ representation for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer has been rejected against which the present writ petition has been filed. The representation of the petitioners was rejected by the authority on the ground that the vacancies which are existing for the reserved post cannot be allowed to be filled up by way of promotion of the petitioners who belong to the general category. The same plea is, more or less, taken by the petitioners in the writ petition. This Court does not find any merit in the contentions raised, in much as, the post which are reserved for the reserved category cannot be filled up by way of promotion from the candidates belonging to the general category. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that certain quota has been fixed for the degree holder Junior Engineer for being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such quota cannot be fixed and, in support of that the petitioners has placed reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of 2 Aruvendra Kumar Garg and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, [(2002) 2 UPLBEC 1483], in which, it was held that fixation of the separate quota for degree holder Junior Engineer and diploma holder Junior Engineer is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such pleadings has not been made with precision in this present writ petition. It is also not clear as to whether the decision cited in the case of Aruvendra Kumar Garg (Supra) is applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, this court is not inclined to dwell on this argument. The writ petition, consequently, fails and is dismissed. It is open to the petitioners to raise such plea before the Public Services Tribunal for redressal of their grievance. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 25.03.2010 Shiv