Hon’ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.S. Pawar, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has impeached the order dated 11.1.2013, passed by the Deputy Cane Commissioner/Chairperson, Regional Cane Authority, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, the opposite party No. 2, whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 17.12.2012 has been rejected. By means of the aforesaid representation, the petitioner had prayed that the petitioner be treated as promoted on the post of Clerk with effect from 31.1.2004 when the junior to the petitioner, namely, Sri Devi Prasad Pandey was promoted/regularized.

3. The facts and circumstances of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Seasonal Clerk on 1.4.1970. However, Sri Devi Prasad Pandey was also appointed on the post of Seasonal Clerk on 16.11.1976. The seniority list of the Seasonal clerks dated 31.10.1995 was prepared, in which, the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No. 189, whereas the name of Sri Devi Prasad Pandey finds place at serial No. 301. The aforesaid seniority list has been enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure 2.

4. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was given charge of the Accountant on 5.6.1998 vide order being passed by the Secretary-cum-Deputy Cane Commissioner/Chairperson Cooperative Cane Development Societies Ltd. Utraula, Balrampur (Annexure 11 to the writ petition).

5. The petitioner preferred a representation dated 16.10.2000 to the Competent Authority that he be promoted on the post of Clerk as he has been discharging his duties on the post of Accountant with effect from 1998. On the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, the Competent Authority at Balrampur has preferred a letter dated 26.8.2002 to the authority concerned at Faizabad to make promotion of the petitioner from the post of Seasonal Clerk to the post of Clerk. By means of the aforesaid letter, it has been categorically indicated that the work and conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory and he is fully competent and eligible to be promoted on the post of regular Clerk.

6. The petitioner thereafter transferred from Utraula to Balrampur in the month of February, 2003 and thereafter one Sri Devi Prasad Pandey was promoted on the post of regular Clerk in the year 2004. Since the petitioner was not posted at the same place where Sri Devi Prasad pandey was posted, therefore, the petitioner could not know about the promotion of Sri Devi Prasad Pandey.

7. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was very much sure that pursuant to the letter dated 26.8.2002 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), the petitioner would be promoted on the post of regular Clerk.

8. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner kept on representing the authorities concerned for his promotion on the post of regular Clerk, but no positive decision has been taken by the Competent Authority despite the fact that the strong recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 26.8.2002.

9. The petitioner has lastly represented the authority concerned on 24.4.2011 apprising that he is going to retire on 30.11.2011 and his junior has already been promoted on the post of regular Clerk, but he was not promoted for no cogent reasons despite the strong recommendation in his favour. When no suitable order has been passed on the representation of the petitioner, he preferred Writ Petition No. 6869 (S/S) of 2012 before this Court, wherein this Court was pleased to pass an order dated 29.11.2012 directing the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 24.4.2011 and pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law.

10. The petitioner has preferred a fresh representation dated 17.12.2012 enclosing therewith certified copy of order dated 29.11.2012 ventilating his gr