- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: "For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to forthwith grant to the petitioner, the status of regular, full fledged Public Prosecutor along with consequential benefits, from the date he took over charge as incharge Public Prosecutor i.e. 11.03.2008"
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor and he assumed the charge w.e.f. 17.04.1984. The petitioner was granted first timebound promotion after completing ten years' of service vide Memo dated 22.08.1997. It is the case of the petitioner that he was given charge of Public Prosecutor and he functioned as incharge Public Prosecutor for so many years and more particularly w.e.f. 11.03.2008 however, his claim for regular promotion on the post of Public Prosecutor has not been decided by the respondent authorities. He made representation dated 14.10.2012 however, the said representation has also not been decided by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, in which a plea has been raised that no Promotion Rules have been framed and therefore, the claim of the petitioner to promote him with retrospective date on the post of Public Prosecutor is not maintainable.;