- (1.) Heard Sri Vishesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to promote him on the post of Lecturer (Hindi). There is nothing on record to show that representation of the petitioner has been received in the office of the respondents. The petitioner should first approach the department.
(3.) This writ petition is therefore not maintainable in view of the decisions in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 1975 AIR(SC) 460 and the Supreme Court has in paragraph 24 held as under: "24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under the Article 226 are not strictly confine4d to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognized rule that no writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applied in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied for us, as it is in England, when a writ of Mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England. As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.";