- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this court in writ petition no. 21591 of 2014(Rajendra Prasad Upadhyay and 28 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) which is quoted as under : "I have heard Sri A.R. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. By this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion/regularization against the post of Van Rakshak in terms of Amended Rules of Avar Adhinast Van Sewa Niyamawali, 1980. The petitioners are claiming promotion under 65% quota reserved for daily wager. The petitioners are working in the Forest Department and drawing minimum pay scale. The petitioners are also claiming promotion under 10% quota reserved for Class-IV Employees, who have certificate of High School. The contention of the petitioner is that their case has already been recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, Renukoot, Sonbhadra. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner prefers a representation within 15 days from today along with the certified copy of this order, raising all his grievances which he has taken in this petition, before the respondent no.3, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Mirzapur the same shall be decided by the respondent no.3 within a further period of two months by a reasoned and speaking order. In case respondent no.3 is not the competent authority to decide the matter, he shall refer the matter to the Competent Authority. It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the case of the petitioner on merits."
(2.) In view of the aforesaid direction exercise was undertaken and order dated 15.4.2014 has already been passed. The petitioner is still claiming for promotion/regularisation under 65% quota reserved for daily wager.
(3.) Learned standing counsel submits that the respondent authority may consider the grievance of the petitioner but before proceeding further with the exercise, eligibility of the petitioner has to be considered and unless the petitioner is eligible for such promotion/regularization under the Niyamwali 1980, no such relief for consideration of claim can be granted.;