1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2116/2010 Maya Choudhary. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date : 5.3.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RS Choudhary, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed in a project of Lok Jumbish vide order dated 31.1.1997. According to the petitioner, she has been regularly absorbed in the service and in support of this, the petitioner relied upon Annex.3 dated 13.12.2004 and Annex.4 dated 16.2.2005. However, in these two documents, it is not mentioned that the petitioner has been absorbed in regular cadre. The petitioner then relied upon Annex.7 dated 9.2.2010 wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has been absorbed vide order dated 14.10.2004. No such order dated 14.10.2004 is placed on record from which it can be gathered that the petitioner has been absorbed in regular cadre. The petitioner then submitted that one advertisement has been issued on 28.1.2010 to fill up the post of CRCF. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the said post, therefore, the respondents cannot proceed to advertise the said post. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show that the said post is a post which can be filled up by promotion and not by direct recruitment and admittedly, the petitioner is not holding the post of CRCF. The contention of the petitioner that he has been regularly absorbed having opportunity to get promotional post is not substantiated by any document or by any relevant provision nor the petitioner could demonstrate that the advertisement Annex.8 is for filling up the said post by promotion, rather say, the advertisement says that the post has been advertised to be filled up by direct recruitment. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents may be directed to grant promotion as sought by Annex.7 dated 9.2.2010 is concerned, it is absolutely a pre-mature writ petition in view of the fact that the said recommendation is dated 9.2.2010 and this is for the authority to decide what action is to be taken on the basis of the recommendation made by an officer subordinate to the officer to whom this communication is addressed. In view of the above, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya