JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. 1. Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Considering the issue involves and the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the writ petitioner who was appointed as a Receptionist under the Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC), pursuant to the decision of the Executive Committee of the MADC in the meeting held on 01.02.1999 was regularized w.e.f. 01.02.1999 (Annexure-1). 4. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner in the post of Receptionist was converted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) w.e.f. 01.02.1999 as per the decision of the 50th Executive Committee Meeting of the 10th MADC. After the services of the petitioner in the post of Receptionist was converted into UDC, the respondent authorities vide Notification dated 01.12.2014 (Annexure-6) issued an inter se seniority list of UDC under the MADC wherein, the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2. According to the petitioner, the next promotional post from the post of UDC is to the post of Assistant. Although the petitioner is eligible in all respect and considering her seniority position in the Seniority List of 01.12.2014, she was expecting to be considered for promotion but to her surprise, the respondent authorities promoted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide Office Order dated 31.08.2018. Being aggrieved, she submitted a representation before the Executive Secretary of the MADC on 21.09.2018 requesting the said authority to consider her case for promotion w.e.f the date her juniors i.e. the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted to the post of Assistant. However, the representation of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent authority concerned and instead the private respondent Nos. 4 to 10 were promoted vide Office Orders dated 28.09.2018 and 22.02.2019 (Annexures 9 and 10) respectively. 5. Mr. Victor L. Ralte, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seniority position of the private respondents in the Seniority List dated 01.12.2014 are at serial Nos. 3 to 20 and at serial No. 26. As for the petitioner, she is placed at serial No. 2. Therefore, the respondent authorities have clearly failed to take into account the seniority position of the petitioner before promoting the private respondents to the post of Assistant. 3 to 20 and at serial No. 26. As for the petitioner, she is placed at serial No. 2. Therefore, the respondent authorities have clearly failed to take into account the seniority position of the petitioner before promoting the private respondents to the post of Assistant. The learned counsel submits that as the representation submitted by the petitioner on 21.09.2018 is pending as on date and since, there are three (3) post of Assistant vacant under the MADC presently, Court may direct the respondent authorities to consider promoting the petitioner w.e.f the date her juniors were promoted and also to dispose of her representation within a time frame. 6. As may be noticed, the claim of the petitioner is that she being placed at serial No. 2 in the Seniority List dated 01.12.2014, she ought to have been considered for promotion when the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted i.e. on 31.08.2018. The further claim of the petitioner is that she is eligible and qualified in all respect for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant. 7. In view of the projection made by the petitioner and considering the pending representation, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider the representation of the petitioner submitted on 21.09.2018 and disposed of the same by way of a speaking order. The petitioner shall also be considered for promotion against the three (3) post of Assistant said to be vacant under the MADC, if the same is sought to be filled up. 8. The petitioner shall submit a copy of the writ petition to the respondent No. 1 alongwith a certified copy of this order within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent No. 1 shall on receipt of the same consider and dispose the representation by way of a speaking order within a period of one month thereafter. 9. A copy of the order to be passed shall be communicated to the petitioner. 10. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.