VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD both sides.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner in this writ is that the management has not granted him promotion to Grade C, though the petitioner has been working in the department. The career graph of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a driver in category V on 23.3.1982 then he was upgraded to grade VI on 1.7.1992, though he became eligible for that post after completion of 8 years of experience. The further case of the petitioner is that subsequently, in the year 1992 vide Annexure -8, the post of the petitioner was upgraded to category -VI. Therefore, according to the petitioner if the post was upgraded to category VI with effect from 1.7.1992 then as per the promotion policy as contained in Annexure -A, he should have been promoted to Grade C after completion of 7 years of experience with effect from 1.7.1992.
(3.) THE sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner could not be granted that promotion earlier because of non -availability of that post as there is no vacancy on that post.;