JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J.—The petitioner was initially appointed by the respondent Board as Mali-cum-Cbowkidar on 8-9-1970. He was promoted later by an order dated 1-9-197. as Library Attendant in the grade of Rs. 75-3-9O/3-105 He was working as such since that date At that time there was no post of Librarian as such, and there was no Rule providing for any person to be promoted as Librarian from any other cadre For the first time the post of Librarian was created on 14-11-1995 and applications were called for from outsiders after specifying the requisite qualifications for the post The petitioner filed this writ petition claiming that he was entitled to get promoted to the post of Librarian or atleast to be considered for promotion to the said post and that the post cannot be filled up by direct recruitment. The petitioner did not state in the writ petition that he was initially appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar and later promoted as Library Attendant This non disclosure of a very material factor certainly a factor, which will stand in the way of this Court considering the prayers of the petitioner. 6 prayers 2. However, when the writ petition came up for orders, in the first instance, this Court passed an order on 14-8-1996 directing the respondents to interview the petitioner also for the post of Librarian alongwith the other applicants irrespective of his qualifications and permitted the respondents to fill up three posts and keep one post vacant until further orders. It is now represented by the respondents that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the interview and it was found that he stood at the bottom of the merit list among the candidates, who appeared for the test and interview. 3. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that for over 20 years, the petitioner has been functioning as Library Attendant and thus there is a stagnation in the services of the petitioner According to learned Counsel, there must be a promotional avenue and a direction should be given by this Court to create such avenue and consider the case of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner does not strictly qualify according to the qualifications prescribed for the post of Librarian It is pointed out by the respondents that the minimum qualifications are Matric 2nd Division with Punjabi and Diploma in Library Science or the certificate coerce in Library Science. The petitioner has secured 3rd Division in Matric and he does not fulfil the qualification When this was pointed out in the reply, the petitioner has come out with a rejoinder that some of the persons, who were working on Class IV posts were promoted as Clerks even though they had not fulfilled the requisite qualifications. It is submitted in the rejoinder that S/Shri Prittam Chand, Dharam Chand and Sunka Ram, who had passed Matric in 3rd Division were promoted as Clerks by relaxing the qualifications even though the required qualification was Matric 1st Division. It is submitted that a discrimination has been made by the respondents as against the petitioner, We are unable to accept this contention in view of the fact that the post to which a claim is made by the petitioner is that of Librarian and not that of the Clerk. As the two posts are entirely different, we cannot hold that there had been any discrimination on the part of the respondents, 4. It is not in dispute that there was no post of Librarian prior to 1993 and for the first time, when the post was created, certain qualifications are prescribed. It is certainly not open to the petitioner to seek a direction from this Court that the respondents should relax the condition and consider the case of the petitioner. Once it is found that the petitioner does not fulfil the qualification, he does not get any right whatever to be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In fact, as a matter of concession, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to participate in the interview because of interim order passed by this Court. In that interview also, the petitioner has failed and he cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Librarian. 6. Reliance is placed upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh v Secretary, Home {Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others, 1988 (Supp) SCC 519. In that interview also, the petitioner has failed and he cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Librarian. 6. Reliance is placed upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh v Secretary, Home {Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others, 1988 (Supp) SCC 519. The following passage is relied open by learned Counsel for the petitioner : “in course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us, learned Counsel for the appellant indicated the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over to the general cadre. He relied upon two or three communication which are a part of the record where it has been indicated that there is no promotional opportunity available in the wireless organisation. Reasonable promotional opportunity should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. We would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide atleast two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organisation within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. In case the State of Bihar fails to comply with this direction, it should, within two months thereafter, give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the police wireless organisation to exercise option to revert to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to every one in the wireless organisation." 7. It is evident from a reading of the judgment that the directions given by the Supreme Court are in exercise of the powers of that Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is not possible to grant such direction under Article 216 of the Constitution of India in this case. 8. Learned Counsel draws our attention to another judgment of the Supreme Court in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another v. K. G. S. Bhatt and another, (1989) 4 SCC.635. It is seen from the facts of the case that the Tribunal had taken a view that the Bye law No 71 (b) (ii) was applicable to the person concerned in that case and issued directions on that footing. It is seen from the facts of the case that the Tribunal had taken a view that the Bye law No 71 (b) (ii) was applicable to the person concerned in that case and issued directions on that footing. But the Supreme Court did not agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal and declined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in view of the fact that the 1st respondent before that Court had suffered stagnated for about 20 years in the same scale from the very inception due to defective promotional policy. In that context the Supreme Court made the following observations : “By pointing out the error that crept into the decision of the Tribunal, we need not to take to its logical end which will defeat justice. Respondent No, 1 is not a layman. He is a highly qualified engineer. Although he joined service with a diploma in engineering, he later passed Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) and also acquired M. Tech. degree and one more diploma (D P M.) He was however, left without opportunity for promotion for about twenty years. This is indeed a sad commentary on the appellants management. It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not ‘hire a hand’ but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an Organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any Organisation It is an incentive for personnel development as well. Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upwards The organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors. There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions." 9. The observations of the Supreme Court cannot be torn out of the context and made use of by the petitioner in the present case. There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions." 9. The observations of the Supreme Court cannot be torn out of the context and made use of by the petitioner in the present case. As we have pointed out earlier, the relevant facts are entirely different and the petitioner has no right as such to be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and get the relief, as prayed for by him. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. C M.P. No. 3363 of 1996: In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, this application is also dismissed and the interim order is vacated. Writ petition dismissed.