- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner's contention is that he was initially appointed on the post of Mate and not on the post of Beldar which is clear from Annex.3 dated 4.8.1984 and the petitioner was granted one selection grade in the year 1994 which is clear from Annex.4. The petitioner has been denied further selection grade vide order dated 3.10.2002 on the ground that the petitioner has already been given one promotion on the post of Mate and then he was given further promotion on the post of Munshi Grade-I, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to award of selection grade as he got promotions.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Mate and that has been treated to be a promotional post and because of that, the respondents committed error in denying the selection grade.;