WP(C) 6246/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The petitioner, who is a Grade-IV employee of Karia H.S. School in the district of Nalbari, has filed this writ petition claiming promotion to the post of Lower Division Assistant (Grade-III). According to the petitioner, he being eligible for promotion, the respondents should consider his case against available vacanc y of Grade-III post. 2. There is no dispute that the Recruitment Rules in operation do not provi de for any promotion. As per the provisions of the Rules, recruitment to the pos t of L.D.A. is to be made by way of direct recruitment. However, the petitione r has referred to the case of one Sarifuddin Ahmed, who was a Grade-IV employee, but upgraded to the post of L.D.A. The said Sri Sarifuddin Ahmed is presently w orking at Pub-Barkhetri High School where he was Grade-IV employee, later on upg raded as L.D.A. 3. I have heard Mr. S.K. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.K. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. 4. When the respondents were directed to clarify their position as to wheth er the said Sri Sarifuddin Ahmed could have been upgraded from Grade-IV to Grade -III, (which was virtually a promotion) in absence of any provisions in the Recr uitment Rules, they in their individual affidavits have stated that such upgrada tion was made erroneously and that there being no provisions for such upgradatio n, he could not have been provided upgradation. On further query being made, th e respondents involving the Director of Secondary Education Sri Brojendra Nath T alukdar; the Deputy Director of Secondary Education Sri Khagendra Nath Das; th e Assistant Inspector of Schools, Nalbari Sri Madhab Chandra Deka; the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari Sri Mridul Neog and the Commissioner & Secretary to the Gov ernment of Assam in the Secondary Education Department, who have filed their ind ividual affidavits, in which they have played the game of blaming each other for the mistake committed in upgrading said Sri Sarifuddin Ahmed. In the affidavit s, it has been stated that steps have been taken for reversion of Sri Sarifuddin Ahmed. 5. During the course of hearing, Mr. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, E ducation Department has submitted that said Sri Sarifuddin Ahmed has already bee n reverted, challenging which he has filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.2312/2 011 in which, notice has been issued. 6. Mr. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the d ecisions reported in 2006 (Suppl1) GLT 384 (Thongbam Brajamani Singh v. State of Manipur & Ors.); 2002 ((2) GLT 416 (Margaret Wanrap & Ors. v. State of Meghalay a & Ors.); 2005 (1) GLT 347 (Bidyut Kanti Choudhury v. State of Tripura & Ors.); AIR 2004 SC 1249 (State of Tripura & Ors. v. K.K. Roy); 1988 (Supp) SCC 519 (Ra ghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar & Ors.) and 1990 (Supp) SCC 113 (Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd) & Ors v. Mahanaga r Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr.) has submitted that the Recruitment Rules must pro vide promotional avenue inasmuch unless such avenue for promotion is provided st agnation will prevail. 7. The aforesaid submission made by Mr. Singha, learned counsel for the pet itioner will further go to show that there is no provision in the Recruitment Ru les for promotion of a Grade-IV employee to Grade-III cadre, about which mention has been made above. It is not the prayer of the petitioner to make amendment o f the Recruitment Rules. The only prayer made in the writ petition is to upgrade the petitioner to Grade-III post. In absence of any provisions for such upgrada tion/promotion in the Recruitment Rules, this Court cannot issue any direction f or such upgradation/promotion. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the provisions of the Rules for not providing any avenue for promotion, it is always open for h im to pursue such legal remedy, as may be available in law. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and a ccordingly, it is dismissed. 9. Before parting with the case records, the aforementioned authorities, wh o have filed their individual affidavit, are directed to perform their duties an d responsibility adhering to the Rules and not to violate the same. It is expect ed that they will be careful in future in such matters.