JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.(Oral)-Petitioner was appointed as Lineman (Work-charge) on 5th March, 1973. His precise case is that two workmen, namely, Parkash and Darshan Singh have been promoted to the post of Fitter (Work-charge) vide letter dated 29th January, 1987. His further case is that the Executive Engineer has recommended the case of the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer for promotion from Lineman (Work-charge) to Fitter (Work-charge) on 15.3.1995. The case of the respondent-State, in nutshell, is that only two posts of Fitter (Workcharge) were available. 2. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents of not promoting the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in absence of posts, the petitioner could not be promoted. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 4. A bare perusal of Annexure A-1, dated 15th March, 1995 reveals that two posts of Fitter (Work-charge) were lying vacant after the retirement of Shri Deputy Lal with effect from 30.11.1990 and Shri Balwant Singh, Fitter (Work-charge) on 30.6.1993. In view of this position, the case of the petitioner was required to be considered from promotion to the post of Fitter (Work-charge). The petitioner has worked uninterrupted from 15th March, 1973 as Lineman. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the basis of recommendations made by the Executive Engineer vide Annexure A-1, dated 15.3.1996 within a period of six weeks from today. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.