JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. A long drawn battle which originated from grant of promotion to the petitioner, from the post of a night guard to that of a correspondence clerk, had earlier become a subject matter of challenge on the ground of discrimination, in CWJC No. 4584 of 1992 filed by one Laldeo Rai. It was the observation made by the Court in that writ application contained (Annexure-11) which compelled the respondents to have a closer look at the order of promotion given to the petitioner. Petitioner was issued a show cause as to how he came to be promoted from a Class IV post(night guard), working in a work charge establishment to a Class III post (correspondence clerk), in the regular establishment. One stand which was taken by the petitioner against the show cause was that he had earned his promotion under the 25 per cent quota, which was available to Class IV employees, in terms of a policy decision contained in Annexure-16A. The respondents not being convinced about the claim and actual state of affairs, issued the order of reversion contained in Annexure-16, which is dated 21.3.1997. This has been challenged in the present writ application. The earlier effort made by the petitioner to seek stay of the said order was of no avail as the High Court way back on 22.9.1997 rejected the interlocutory application and refused to stay the reversion order. Since matter was admitted it is now being taken up for final hearing. 2. Stand of the senior counsel for the petitioner is that the benefit accrued to the petitioner years ago, conferred by the Chief Engineer based on the opening given to Class IV employees under the 25 per cent quota. On a wrong assumption the reversion order has been effected. The respondents are not correct in holding that the petitioner appointed in the work charge establishment, even if brought in the regular establishment, was not entitled to any substantive promotion. 3. There is no dispute that there is no channel of promotion from a night guard to the post of a correspondence clerk, as one is a Class IV post and the other a Class III post. In fact, these posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment by the procedure laid down. 3. There is no dispute that there is no channel of promotion from a night guard to the post of a correspondence clerk, as one is a Class IV post and the other a Class III post. In fact, these posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment by the procedure laid down. But later on demand and agitation carried out by the employees, an opening was sought to be given by the State by limiting 25 per cent of the posts for meritorious candidates having requisite qualification, if they otherwise qualify in a limited examination, which was to be conducted for all the eligible candidates. 4. The respondents have categorically stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner was trying to flout or tout his passing of Hindi Noting & Drafting Examination as an examination which enabled him to claim benefit of promotion under the 25 per cent quota. But this is a misleading or misplaced kind of stand taken by him because passing of the Hindi Noting & Drafting Examination was another issue altogether. There is nothing to show by the petitioner that he came to be promoted by the Chief Engineer on the basis of the limited examination conducted at the relevant time. 5. The stand of the State is not new because similar stand was taken by the State before the Division Bench and in the order passed by the Division Bench does reflect that position in the case of Laldeo Rai (Annexure-11). 6. Obviously, the benefit of promotion to a Class III post granted to the petitioner by the then Chief Engineer was either on a mistaken understanding of the circular of the Government, or for extraneous reasons which are not required to be investigated by this Court. The fact stands that there is clear evidence from pleadings on behalf of the parties that the petitioner had no right of promotion on the post of correspondence clerk from a post of night guard as a matter of course. The decision of the respondents, therefore, contained in Annexure-16 does not require interference as the reasoning given therein and the background under which the said order came to be issued are cogent and valid reasons. 7. Before parting learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that reading of Annexure-16 would show that the petitioner has absolutely no opening or avenue of promotion at all. 7. Before parting learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that reading of Annexure-16 would show that the petitioner has absolutely no opening or avenue of promotion at all. If what has been stated by the respondents is read in its letter and spirit, then a person working in the work charge establishment is not entitled to promotion. In the opinion of this Court, such an observation was made with regard to the background under which promotion order came to be issued to the petitioner. But there cannot be any quarrel that if there is a policy for giving an opening to Class IV employees, who are eligible for promotion to Class III post, provided they fulfil the requirements. The petitioner cannot be barred in that manner, more so if he had come to the regular establishment. If an exercise is carried out and the petitioner otherwise fulfils all the requirements in terms of the policy laid down by the Government to fill up 25 per cent quota, he may have such an opening. 8. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed but with the observation made above with regard to the future claim of the petitioner for promotion under 25 per cent quota.