JUDGMENT Arindam Lodh, J. - None appears for the petitioner. Heard Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 1. By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 'a. admit this petition; b. call for the records; c. issue writ in the nature of Mandamus calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be appointed to the post of Plant Operator effecting from 01.09.2011 being the date of effect of promotion of Sri Dilip Sarkar to the post of Boiler Operator with all consequential service benefits; d. pass any other relief(s) which Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in this case.' 2. From the petition, it appears that the petitioner had joined the service of Gomati Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited as Dairyman in the year 1990. In the year 1995, he was recommended for appointment to the post of Plant Operator alongwith three others including Sri Dilip Sarkar. Sri Pradip Kumar Shil, at serial no. 1, in the panel got the appointment. Later on in the year 2011, the petitioner and Sri Dilip Sarkar were appointed as Junior Plant Operator, but, all on a sudden the post of Junior Plant Operator had been re-designated as Junior Boiler Operator in the year 2015 w.e.f. 01.09.2011 only for Sri Dilip Sarkar and promoted him to the post of Boiler Operator effecting from 01.09.2011 being the same date of redesignation of the post. According to the petitioner, this is an utter discrimination. The plea of the petitioner is that, inspite of availability of posts, he was not given promotion to the post of Plant Operator, rather filled up the posts by reserve category candidates. According to the petitioner, the said promotion was made in violation of the Recruitment Rules. 3. The State respondents by filing counter affidavit had denied the said allegations of the petitioner. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that the petitioner and Sri Dilip Sarkar joined service as Dairyman, and thereafter, both of them were recommended by the Interview Board on 28.03.1995 for the post of Plant Operator, and thereafter, in the year 2011, both the petitioner and Sri Dilip Sarkar got appointment as Junior Plant Operator, and thus, they are similarly situated persons. Mr. Mr. Saha, has further submitted that both the posts of Plant Operator and Boiler Operator are same. It is further submitted that the petitioner could not be promoted to the next promotional post due to non-availability of the vacant posts. Lastly, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that all the appointment and promotion were made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and in strict compliance of reservation policy prevalent in the State of Tripura. 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, I direct the petitioner to submit a representation to the authority concerned stating all his grievances. The said representation shall be filed within a period of 4 (four) weeks from today. 5. After receipt of the said representation, the State-respondents shall consider the same and will communicate its decision to the petitioner by a speaking order within next 4 (four) weeks. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed in terms of above directions. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.