ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking promotion on the post of Additional Sanitary Inspector with all consequential benefits, on the ground that the person junior to him has been given promotion by the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed on 01.07.1975. The respondents formulated a policy for giving promotion to the employees, whereunder it has been prescribed that the employee who is senior most amongst other employees would be given promotion. In the year, 1975 the petitioner was sent for training of Sanitary Inspector in All India Institute of Local Self Government, Delhi. It has also been stated that pursuant to order passed by this Court, six other employees have already been promoted. A list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 9 and the person whose name appeared at Serial No. 8 namely, Bhai Suryanand Jee has already been given promotion to the post of Additional Sanitary Inspector. A recommendation was made for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Additional Sanitary Inspector, however, the petitioner was not granted promotion. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that no person junior to the petitioner has been granted promotion and in fact, the Respondent No. 5 was appointed on the post of Sanitary Supervisor and the said post was redesignated as Sanitary Inspector vide memo no. 310 dated 26.12.2001. It has also been stated that the pay-scale for the post of Sanitary Inspector is equivalent to the post of Sanitary Supervisor and therefore, the post of Sanitary Supervisor was redesignated as Sanitary Inspector. It has also been stated that vide memo no. 1438 dated 20.09.1979, the petitioner was granted permission to undergo training of Sanitary Inspector subject to the condition that MADA would not be bound to appoint him as Sanitary Inspector on successful training. A list has been furnished by the respondents in which name of the persons who have been granted promotion have been disclosed and it has been categorically stated that all those persons are senior to the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. A list has been furnished by the respondents in which name of the persons who have been granted promotion have been disclosed and it has been categorically stated that all those persons are senior to the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly, several persons have been granted promotion and there are several vacancies still existing, however, the petitioner has not been granted promotion. The Respondent No. 5 was appointed after the petitioner was appointed and therefore, the petitioner is senior to the Respondent No. 5 and the petitioner has been illegally denied the grant of promotion on the post of Additional Sanitary Inspector. 6. Per contra, Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, reiterates the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submits that the petitioner has not been able to disclose the name of any other persons who is junior to him and who has been granted promotion on the post of Sanitary Inspector and therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. A perusal of the documents on record would indicate that the petitioner has not disclosed in the writ petition, on which post he was initially appointed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been specifically stated that Respondent No. 5 was working on the post of Sanitary Supervisor and the said post has been redesignated as Sanitary Inspector. A list has been enclosed, of the persons who have been granted promotion and it would be apparent from the list so furnished by the respondents that the persons who have been granted promotion, are senior to the petitioner. 8. I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.