JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of respondent No. 1 dated 22-10-1986, contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. He seeks quashment of this order, inter alia, on the grounds that the said order is totally illegal and suffers from error apparent on the face of the record because the said order has ignored the claim of the petitioner on the ex-cadre post of Accountant and Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) and is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The impugned order is said to be based on no evidence and is perverse. The impugned order is passed without application of mind. Irrelevant materials and extraneous considerations have been taken into consideration by the respondent No. 1 while passing the said order. The result is that the petitioner has been denied equality before law. The said order is said to be against the principles of natural justice. To appreciate the dispute, which is to be determined in this writ petition, it is necessary to bring out certain facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is said to have been appointed as a Junior clerk in the year 1962. He was confirmed as Junior clerk on 15-5-1971. Prior to his confirmation he seems to have been appointed as Stenographer in 1971 on ad hoc basis and was sent on deputation with the special officer Electricity to Government, Lucknow with effect from 6-1-1976 to 31-7-1979. He is said to have been confirmed as Stenographer with effect from 1-8-1975. He was eligible to the post of Accountant. He had the requisite qualification for the said post being graduate in Commerce (B. Com) with Advanced Accountancy, Statistics, Auditing and Commercial law. In 1973 Service Rules were framed, which envisaged four categories posts which included general clerical post of Assistant Superintendent, Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk besides stenographer. There was an ex-cadre post of Accountant since long in the pay scale of Assistant Accountant i. e. Rs. 200-425. in respect of Post of Accountant no rules were framed in 1973. 1973 Rules govern general clerical posts. 3. It is averred that in the year 1979 a vacancy on the post of Accountant was created due to the promotion of the incumbent of that post. 200-425. in respect of Post of Accountant no rules were framed in 1973. 1973 Rules govern general clerical posts. 3. It is averred that in the year 1979 a vacancy on the post of Accountant was created due to the promotion of the incumbent of that post. The petitioner is said to have applied for the said post vide his application dated 20-7-1979. The petitioner was not selected and instead one Zafrul Islam was selected on the said post in violation of the rules. Thereafter anew post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) was sanctioned and created sometime in the year 1979 as an ex-cadre post in the pay scale of Accountant i. e. Rs. 300-500. This post had not existed before nor was it contemplated by the Service Rules of 1973. Rule 5 (3) of the Service Rules provides for filling up the post of Assistant Superintendent (general post) by promoting a permanent Senior Clerk having the requisite length of service. The post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) was clearly an ex-cadre post and was not included in the categories mentioned in the Service Rules. The respondents are said to have ignored the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the said post and one Mr. A.W. Siddiqui was promoted to the said post. The promotion of Mr. Siddiqui is also said to be illegal. The petitioner submits that the said Mr. Siddiqui was Senior clerk and he could be promoted against the post of Assistant Superintendent (general) and not on the post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts). The petitioner made a representation on 31-12-1977 against the said promotion. The petitioner's case is that as a result of his representation the State Government issued a Government Order on 17-5-1980 laying down the criteria and qualification for filling up the post of Accountant and Assistant Superintendent (Accounts). The qualification of seniority among the qualified candidates was to be considered if he had a degree with Commerce, Economics, Statistics or Math's together with experience in Accounts work of the Inspectorate. Unfit among the candidates could be rejected. However, this Government order did not tamper with the promotion of Zafarul Islam and A.W. Siddiqui. In respect of the petitioner's entitlement it laid down the criteria for promotion against the post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) in future. Unfit among the candidates could be rejected. However, this Government order did not tamper with the promotion of Zafarul Islam and A.W. Siddiqui. In respect of the petitioner's entitlement it laid down the criteria for promotion against the post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) in future. The petitioner challenges the said Government order as being bad and also the promotion of Zafrul Islam and A.W. Siddiqui as being illegal but this Court cannot take cognisance of the challenge to the said Government Order or to the promotion of Sri Zafrul Islam or Sri A.W. Siddiqui because they are not party to the writ petition nor are they before the Court. This plea seems to have been raised in the writ petition to narrate the background as to how the petitioner has been persistently suffering injustice at the hands of the respondents. 4. In June, 1980 a post of Accountant is said to have fallen vacant in the Inspectorate. The petitioner alone was eligible for being considered and appointed against the said post in terms of the Government Order dated 17-5-1980. The petitioner's claim was ignored and in violation of his rights the respondent No. 4 was appointed illegally on the post of Accountant, he belonged to the cadre of Senior clerk. In July, 1972 when the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Junior clerk and was working in the higher scale of Rs. 250-425 the respondent No. 4 was neither confirmed on any post nor was he working in any scale of pay at par or higher to the petitioner. He was junior in length of service to the petitioner having become a member of service on 1-7-1992. In 1975 the respondent No 4 was confirmed in the grade of Rs. 230-385 whereas the petitioner was confirmed in the grade of Rs. 250-425. The petitioner belongs to one of the four categories in the cadre of service. The respondent No. 4 is junior to the petitioner and lower in pay and grade. The post of senior clerk against which the respondent No. 4 was appointed illegally in violation of the rules was abolished in the year 1971 and for this reason he was appointed as stenographer on 11-10-1971 and thereafter as Senior clerk on 1-7-1972. It is contended that the period from 30-3-1962 to 30-6-1972 ha? not been counted towards his seniority. The post of senior clerk against which the respondent No. 4 was appointed illegally in violation of the rules was abolished in the year 1971 and for this reason he was appointed as stenographer on 11-10-1971 and thereafter as Senior clerk on 1-7-1972. It is contended that the period from 30-3-1962 to 30-6-1972 ha? not been counted towards his seniority. The petitioner is said to have gained sufficient experience in Accounts work and he has worked for more than three and a half years as Accountant, for seven months as Book keeper and for more than 11 years as Accounts clerk. The petitioner's claim was that he was declared as qualified person for the Accounts work with effect from 1-7-1979 owing to his qualification in Accounts line of B Com. The respondent No. 4 was not qualified for the post of Accountant. He is only a B.A. graduate with Economics and worked as Senior clerk only. Therefore, under rules he could not be appointed as Accountant. The petitioner was deprived of an opportunity for being considered as Accountant/Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) and this would amount to discriminatory treatment having been given to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly filed a claim petition challenging the appointment of the respondent No. 4 and seeking the relief in his favour before the Service Tribunal No. IV at Lucknow. The petition was dismissed with costs. 5. The Tribunal seems to have admitted a supplementary affidavit of Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government of U. P. dated 17-10-1986 with two documents after the close of the arguments. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner did not file any objection to its admission and on the back of the said affidavit the petitioner's counsel is said to have written that no rebuttal was required to be filed. Therefore the Tribunal seems to have taken these two documents on record and based its finding on the said affidavit and on the documents which accompanied the said affidavit. The fresh material, which was brought on record revealed that the post of Accountant had been abolished with effect from 1-7-1979 and the said post was known as Accounts clerk of which the pay-scale was Re. 430-685. The post of stenographer has been upgraded in the pay-scale of Rs. 470-735. The fresh material, which was brought on record revealed that the post of Accountant had been abolished with effect from 1-7-1979 and the said post was known as Accounts clerk of which the pay-scale was Re. 430-685. The post of stenographer has been upgraded in the pay-scale of Rs. 470-735. The petitioner was held to be working on a higher post in the higher pay-scale than the post of Accounts clerk, previously known as `Accountant'. The petitioner could not be considered for promotion against a post which was lower in pay and grade to the post already held by him. He could not be demoted. 6. So far as the post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) known as Office Superintendent Grade II was concerned, it was carrying the pay scale of Rs. 570-1100. It is a promotion post. The said post is to be filled up by promotion from the permanent Senior grade clerks, who have put in at-least ten years service including on the post of Junior grade clerk. The petitioner being a stenographer and not a Junior Grade clerk or Senior Grade clerk cannot be considered against the said post. The petitioner's confirmation to the post of Junior Clerk w.e.f. 15-5-1971 will have no effect. The pay-scale of the said post was much lower to the post of stenographer. Similarly the post of senior clerk carries a lower pay-scale than that of the post of stenographer. The petitioner being a stenographer could not be considered for the post of Office Superintendent Grade II. 7. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit. The factual paras of the writ petition relating to the petitioner's date of first appointment, his confirmation and his promotion to the higher post are not denied. The petitioner is said to possess qualification for the post of Accountant, which has now been abolished and is converted into Accounts clerk post. The petitioner's case for promotion was considered in 1979 but he was not found fit by the departmental Selection committee for the post of Accountant. Therefore, Sri Zafrul Islam, who was fit for the post, was appointed. The ex-cadre post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) was never created nor it exists even today. The assertion of the petitioner in this regard are denied. Two posts of Assistant Superintendent in the pay-scale of Rs. Therefore, Sri Zafrul Islam, who was fit for the post, was appointed. The ex-cadre post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) was never created nor it exists even today. The assertion of the petitioner in this regard are denied. Two posts of Assistant Superintendent in the pay-scale of Rs. 300-500 were sanctioned by the Government in the year 1979 and recruitment's against the said posts were made in accordance in with the Rules of 1973. The issuance of the Government Order dated 17-5-1980 is admitted. Before the Tribunal the petitioner is said to have relied on the said Government. Order but in the writ petition he has termed the said Government order as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 8. About the petitioner's experience it is said that he has no experience of the Accountancy, therefore, he was not , eligible. He is said to have been Junior amongst the stenographers and as also junior to the senior clerks. The respondent No. 4 is said to have been appointed as Senior clerk in the higher grade in 1964. The petitioner was then working as Junior clerk in the lower grade. The cadre of stenographer is totally separate from the cadre of Senior/Junior clerks by virtue of their nature of job. The assertion of the petitioner about discrimination or violation of any Service Rules or any other law is denied. 9. The petitioner's challenge to the promotion of the respondent No. 5 to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) is also wrong. The respondent No. 5 is said to have not been appointed to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts). He was appointed to the post of Assistant Superintendent, which is now known as Superintendent Grade II. His appointment is made in accordance with the rules. The respondent No. 5 had the eligibility and qualification for being appointed on the said post. The petitioner cannot claim promotion to the said post because he is a stenographer and is not a feeding channel for promotion to the said post. 10. In this rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has denied all the assertion made by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in their counter affidavit. It is contended that the petitioner was not accorded any consideration for promotion to the post of Accountant against which Sri Zafrul Islam and A.W. Siddiqui were appointed. 10. In this rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has denied all the assertion made by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in their counter affidavit. It is contended that the petitioner was not accorded any consideration for promotion to the post of Accountant against which Sri Zafrul Islam and A.W. Siddiqui were appointed. It is also stated that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 to the post of Senior Clerk in the year 1964 was not in accordance with law. The petitioner states that he has not based his claim because he was a stenographer but be bases his claim because he is working in the Accounts Section of the Inspectorate. When the respondent No. 5 was promoted the petitioner was not considered and his claim was ignored. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Service Rules of 1973. 12. The petitioner's own case is that these rules do not govern the post of Accountant and Assistant Superintendent (Accounts), as both these posts are not included in the group of posts mentioned in the Rules. 13. The petitioner cannot now raise any objection against the selection of Sri Zafrul Islam as Accountant. At the time of Zafrul Islam's selection the petitioner could have agitated the matter. He did not do so. Therefore, now' he cannot be heard to say that Zafrul Islam's selection was illegal. In the same manner the petitioner cannot raise any objection to the promotion of Sri A. W. Siddiqui. It is contended by the petitioner that Sri Siddiqui could be promoted against the post of Assistant Superintendent (General) but not Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) because he was a Senior clerk. The promotion of the aforesaid two persons is more than 15 years old, therefore, the same cannot be now reopened and the same is to be treated as valid because of efflux of time and because of the petitioner's own conduct. Many more promotions must have taken place in the department during these 15 years and anything done now by this Court will have a serious repercussion on the promotions and seniority of countless people, who are not before the Court. 14. In view of the respondents' assertion that the post, which the petitioner is claiming, has been converted as Lekha Lipik, the complexion of the case is changed. 14. In view of the respondents' assertion that the post, which the petitioner is claiming, has been converted as Lekha Lipik, the complexion of the case is changed. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have denied the allegations of the petitioner in respect of existence of Ex-cadre post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts) for which Service Rules of 1973 were followed. 15. The Tribunal has concluded that the post of Accountant stood converted into the post of Lekha lipik with effect from 1-7-1979 and the post of Stenographer carried a higher pay scale than that of the Accountant. The petitioner according to the Service Rules of 1973 was not entitled to be appointed against the post of Assistant Superintendent (Accounts). It seems that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the affidavit dated 17-10-1986 filed by the opposite side. In the said affidavit it was stated that the post of Accountant was abolished and now the post of Accounts Clerk is in existence, which carries a lower pay scale. The petitioner has denied this fact in the writ petition. About the conversion of the post of Accountant into the post of Accounts Clerk the petitioner says that its nomenclature was only changed. 16. It appears that the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Senior Clerk in the higher grade in 1964. At that time of the petitioner was working as Junior clerk in the lower grade. In view of this fact the petitioner's contention that the respondent No. 4 became the member of Service with effect from 1-7-1972 cannot be believed. Moreover, the cadre of Senior Clerks and Stenographers cannot be treated to be one. These two cadres are different by virtue of nature of their functions they are required to perform. It is also stated in affidavit that the respondent No. 4 was working on the post of Stenographer on 10-11-1971 because three posts of Senior Clerks were converted into the post of Accounts clerks. With effect from 13-6-1972 there posts of Senior Clerks were again restored and the respondent No. 4 was reverted to the lower grade/post of Senior Clerk as per his own option with effect from 1-7-1972. It is also stated that the respondent No. 4 never worked on any post, which was lower than that of Senior clerk. Inter se seniority is not determined by the office order dated 19-8-1975. 17. It is also stated that the respondent No. 4 never worked on any post, which was lower than that of Senior clerk. Inter se seniority is not determined by the office order dated 19-8-1975. 17. The petitioner does not possess the experience of Accountant, which would render him eligible for being selected as Accountant. He is said to have worked in the capacity of Stenographer in the Accounts Section of the Headquarter office of the Inspectorate. But that by itself is not sufficient to clothe him with sufficient experience. The recruitment on the ex-cadre post of accountant is made from amongst the suitable clerks having the requisite experience of accounts work of the Head Office of the Inspectorate. 18. It is stated that the petitioner was not found fit for the post of Accountant by the Departmental Selection Committee. The only right, which the petitioner could assert, was right of consideration. He could not claim appointment as a matter of right. On consideration given to him by the Departmental Selection Committee if he was not found fit for promotion, he should have no grievance. The respondents have also stated that the' respondent No. 5 was simply appointed to the post of Assistant Superintendent and not as Assistant Superintendent (Accounts), as asserted by the petitioner, and his appointment is said to have been made in accordance with the rules. The petitioner is Stenographer. He cannot claim the post of Accountant or Assistant Superintendent, which is now known as Office Superintendent. 19. The petitioner has challenged the finding of the affidavit before the Public Services Tribunal by the respondents on 17-10-1986. It appears that the said affidavit was filed in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner, who did not object to it and endorsed on the affidavit that no rebuttal was required. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now say that he was not given an opportunity of being heard when his counsel had expressly said before the Tribunal and made an endorsement that the affidavit filed by the respondents before the Tribunal was not required to be rebutted. Therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner, if he was not allowed to rebut the affidavit. He did not want to file any counter affidavit. 20. Therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner, if he was not allowed to rebut the affidavit. He did not want to file any counter affidavit. 20. The post of Lekha Lipik, which has come into existence in place of the post of Accountant, is lower in grade and lower in pay scale, therefore, the petitioner cannot be lowered in the grade/pay. The Tribunal has found that on the conversion of post of Accountant into the post of Accounts clerk its pay scale was fixed at Rs. 430 - 685. The petitioner was a Stenographer. His post was upgraded and its pay scale was Rs. 470-735. The petitioner was working on higher post in higher pay scale than the post of Accounts clerk, which was previously known as Accountant. The Tribunal's finding that in case the petitioner's request is granted he will suffer demotion and not promotion because he is to be appointed against the post of Accounts clerk, which has come into existence in place of the post of Accountant. 21. The Tribunal has also taken care to go through the Rules of 1973. On the basis of the material it has been found that the petitioner was Stenographer and not Junior grade clerk or a senior clerk. This fact was admitted also by the petitioner in his claim petition before the Tribunal. As Stenographer the petitioner could not be considered for promotion to the post of office Superintendent Grade II. The Services Tribunal, respondent No. 1. seems to have applied its mind to the facts of of the case and its order dated 22-10-1986 contained in Annexure-2 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 22. For the reasons recorded above the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.