ORDER 1. Heard. 2. It appears that the petitioner-appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition WP (S) No. 6051/2003 for quashing of the seniority list prepared for 877 officers of the State Administrative Service, published in the newspaper on 26th November, 2003. Further prayer of the writ petitioner was for quashing of the recommendation of 41 officers of the State Administrative Service, whose names were proposed by the State Government for promotion to the rank of Indian Administrative Service and also to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in the Super Time Grade-I in the rank of Additional District Magistrate. 3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 15.5.2006, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that this Court cannot seize the role of Selection Committee to find out who are the persons entitled to be listed in the consideration zone and it is for the Selection Committee to include the names of those persons, who, besides the seniority are otherwise fit for promotion/appointment in the IAS Cadre. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he raised his grievance by filing representation before the competent authority, no order was passed. 5. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. However, we are inclined to give liberty to the petitioner-appellant to file detailed representation stating in detail about his claim before the respondent No. 2. If the petitioner files such representation before the respondent No. 2 within four weeks from today, the concerned respondent shall consider the claim of the petitioner in its proper perspective and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing an appropriate order in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter. If the order of the competent authority goes against the petitioner, he would be at liberty to challenge the same at an appropriate forum. With this observation and direction, this appeal is dismissed.