JUDGMENT Nelson Sailo, J. - Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner by filing this writ petition prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to allow him to count the service rendered by him as officiating driver w.e.f. 04.04.1990 upto the time he was regularized in service vide office Order dated 03.02.2000. 2. Referring to the Mizoram Driver Recruitment Rules, 2009, the learned counsel submits that on completion of 5 (five) years of regular service as Driver Grade-III, one is entitled to be promoted to Driver Grade-II. Thereafter, upon completing 10 (ten) years of regular service as Driver Grade-II, one can get promoted to Driver Grade-I. After completing 25 (twenty five) years of regular service calculated from the date of entry into Driver Grade-III, one can be promoted to be Driver Special Grade by selection method. As the petitioner has already rendered about 30 (thirty) years of service as driver, inclusive of the period of his officiating appointment, if the period of his officiating appointment is allowed to be counted for the purpose of promotion, he can be promoted to Driver Special Grade. 3. The learned counsel submits that a similar case was disposed of by this Court. i.e., WP(C) No. 89/2016 (Sh. Lalzawmliana & 3 Others Vs. State of Mizoram & 6 Others) vide Judgment & Order dated 14.02.2018 wherein, the petitioners in that case were found to be entitled to count their services rendered on officiating or ad hoc basis. He therefore submits that since the present case is also covered, a similar direction may be given. 4. The State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 25.04.2018 contend that the number of years of service rendered by a driver can be counted for his promotion only after he is regularly appointed. Such being the prescription in the relevant Recruitment Rules, the petitioner has been given the benefit of promotion in the Grade-I by counting his services from the date he was regularized in service. As such, the petitioner cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. 5. One aspect of the matter, which is noticed is that the petitioner prior to filing the instant writ petition did not approach the respondent authorities by way of submitting a representation. As such, the petitioner cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. 5. One aspect of the matter, which is noticed is that the petitioner prior to filing the instant writ petition did not approach the respondent authorities by way of submitting a representation. This Court is of the considered view that it is not too late in the day for him to file a representation so that the same may be considered appropriately by the respondent authorities themselves. 6. In that view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Health & Family Welfare Department (respondent No. 1) through the Director, Hospital & Medical Education, Government of Mizoram, Aizawl within 2 (two) weeks from today. 7. The petitioner shall also file a copy of the instant writ petition along with the Judgment & Order dated 14.02.2018 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 89/2016 before the respondent No. 1 through the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 upon receipt of the same shall forward the representation along with the enclosures to the respondent No. 1 without delay. The respondent No. 1 shall consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observation made herein above and also in view of the order passed by this Court in Sh. Lalzawmliana & 3 Others Vs. State of Mizoram & 6 Others (Supra). Such consideration be done within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the representation. The representation of the petitioner should be disposed of by way of a speaking order and should be communicated to the petitioner. 8. It is needless to state herein that if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he will be at liberty to approach this Court once again. 9. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.