Judgment Shashank Kumar Singh, J. 1. The present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order issued under the signature of the Registrar of the Patna High Court vide Memo No. 14203-208 dated 13th July, 1990 as contained in Annexure-1, by which the Respondent No. 4 one Sri Anant Narain Singh has been temporarily promoted as Assistant Registrar (Establishment) of Patna High Court, without considering the case of the petitioner. 2. A further prayer has been made for also quashing the order by which Respondent No. 5, has been promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar and has been posted at Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court. 3. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was initially appointed as a Translator in the translation cadre, in the Patna High Court on 2nd February, 1953. Subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Translator in the month of May, 1981. The petitioner thereafter being the seniormost translator was made incharge of the translation department of Patna High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the ex-cadre post of Oath Commissioner with effect from 1st July, 1986. The petitioner had been confirmed on the aforesaid post by notification dated 12th April, 1988. 4. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that post of Oath Commissioner is in the same rank as the post of Administrative Officer as well as the Senior P.A. in the High Court having the same scale of pay also. 5. It has further been contended that the post of Assistant Registrar, being an ex-cadre post and promotion to the aforesaid post is to be made from the lower post of Administrative Officer/Senior P.A./Oath Commissioner, as such, the petitioner was required to be considered before promoting any one else to that post as he was holding the post of Oath Commissioner. In this regard, it has further been contended that earlier also, when case of promotion to the higher post of Assistant Registrar was made available, the case of seniormost person amongst the Administrative Officer/Senior PA/ Oath Commissioner was considered. In this regard, it has further been contended that earlier also, when case of promotion to the higher post of Assistant Registrar was made available, the case of seniormost person amongst the Administrative Officer/Senior PA/ Oath Commissioner was considered. In this regard, certain examples have been given stating therein that one Bindeshwari Prasad who was also functioning as Oath Commissioner, his case was considered for promotion as Assistant Registrar but he could not be promoted only as he was not found fit for promotion to the aforesaid post. Another person namely Shri Alakh Kumar Sinha, who had been working as Oath Commissioner had been promoted as Assistant Registrar, as such, according to learned Counsel when the petitioner became the seniormost Oath Commissioner as well as the seniormost person amongst the Administrative Officers/Senior P.As then the petitioner was expecting that his case should be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, but, ignoring his claim one Shailendra Kishore Sahay was promoted to the aforesaid higher post from the post of Administrative Officer in the year, 1988 without considering the case of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same filed a representation before the Hon ble Chief Justice of Patna High Court on the administrative side on 26th September, 1988 requesting therein that one post of Assistant Registrar, was going to fall vacant on 1st November, 1988 at Ranchi and as such petitioners case should be considered for promotion against the aforesaid post. It is contended that in October 1988, the then Chief-Justice of Patna High Court, while promoting one Shailendra Kishore Sahay to the post of Assistant Registrar observed that next post of Assistant Registrar should be filled up by promotion of the petitioner. As a post of Deputy Registrar was sanctioned in 1990, and one Shyam Narain Singh, seniormost Assistant Registrar was promoted to the said higher post, the post of Assistant Registrar fell vacant on 28th June, 1990, and as the Respondents specially in view of observation of the Chief Justice, were required to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the aforesaid post. Respondent No. 4 Shri Anant Narain Singh, an Administrative Officer of Patna High Court was, however, promoted as Assistant Registrar (Establishment) by the impugned notification as contained in Annexure-1. Respondent No. 4 Shri Anant Narain Singh, an Administrative Officer of Patna High Court was, however, promoted as Assistant Registrar (Establishment) by the impugned notification as contained in Annexure-1. Subsequently, it is stated that when Shyam Narain Singh retired on 30th June, 1990 only two days after being promoted as Deputy Registrar, the case of Respondent No. 5 Mangal Pandit was considered for promotion as Assistant Registrar against the higher post of Deputy Registrar vide order dated 25th July, 1990; again the case of the petitioner was ignored. 7. It is contended by learned Counsel that in spite of filing of several representations, as his claim has all along been ignored, as such, petitioner had no option but to move this Court for quashing of Annexure-1, by which again Respondent No. 4 has been temporarily promoted as Assistant Registrar (Establishment) of Patna High Court, without considering his case. And also for quashing the order by which Respondent No. 5 has been promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar and has been posted at Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in which it has been stated that the petitioner has already superannuated from service and no relief can be granted to him because neither his fundamental right nor any statutory right has been infringed. 9. It has further been contended in the aforesaid counter-affidavit that the petitioner was promoted on the ex-cadre post of Oath Commissioner and actually he belonged to the translator cadre and no post of Assistant Registrar has been created/sanctioned by the State Government for promotion of employees belonging to translation cadre. 10. It has further been contended on behalf of the High Court that no person can claim promotion as a matter of right. The petitioner can only claim to be considered for promotion for an existing superior post. The case of the petitioner was considered and. since there was no post for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar from the employees belonging to the translator cadre, as such, he was not promoted. The petitioner can only claim to be considered for promotion for an existing superior post. The case of the petitioner was considered and. since there was no post for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar from the employees belonging to the translator cadre, as such, he was not promoted. As far as the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that the then Chief Justice in the administrative side had directed that next post of Assistant Registrar shall be filled up by the petitioner, it has been contended in paragraph-9 of the counter-affidavit that the aforesaid averment is wrong as there was no direction that the next post of Assistant Registrar will be filled up by the petitioner. It is contended that when one Shailendra Kishore Sahay was promoted as Assistant Registrar, it was observed that the case of the petitioner may be considered for promotion of Assistant Registrar, whenever a new post of Assistant Registrar or an equivalent post becomes available. In view of aforesaid observation that the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion in the year 1990, along with other officers due for promotion and the Government was also moved for creating four posts equivalent to the post of Deputy Director, which was tentatively earmarked to be filled up from the translator cadre. Since the aforesaid post of Deputy Director had not till date been created, as such, petitioner could not be promoted. It has further been contended that again in the year, 1990, when a post of Assistant Registrar fell vacant as there was no provision for promotion to the aforesaid post from the translator cadre case of the petitioner, as he belongs to the aforesaid cadre, could not be considered for promotion. 11. It has further been contended that again in the year, 1990, when a post of Assistant Registrar fell vacant as there was no provision for promotion to the aforesaid post from the translator cadre case of the petitioner, as he belongs to the aforesaid cadre, could not be considered for promotion. 11. With regard to the statement made in paragraph-21 of the writ application that as far as direction of the Court on the administrative side for consideration of the case of the petitioner when subsequently vacancy was available is concerned, it is stated that the aforesaid order was dated 27-10-1998, and subsequent thereto petitioners case for promotion as Assistant Registrar was taken into consideration but the petitioner could not be promoted as since the two posts of Assistant Registrar, for which the Court has already moved the State Government had not been created till that time and as per the direction also, the case of the petitioner was to be taken up at the next promotion stage in the cadre of Assistant Registrar, and since the post was not created, the petitioner could not be promoted and now as the petitioner had already superannuated, his case could not be considered for promotion as no one else has been promoted as Assistant Registrar, from the translator cadre superseding the claim of the petitioner. 12. In the facts of the case, specially in view of the fact that there was no provision for promotion as Assistant Registrar from the translator cadre and as admittedly, the petitioner belongs to the aforesaid cadre and though a direction has been given on the administrative side for consideration of his case in case of future vacancy as the High Court had already written to the State Government for creation of post of Assistant Registrars which were to be filled up from the translator cadre and as the aforesaid post had not been sanctioned by the State Government and as case of any one else in the translator cadre have not been considered/promoted on the aforesaid post from the aforesaid cadre rather no one junior to the petitioner had been considered and promoted on the aforesaid post, the petitioner cannot claim to be promoted as Assistant Registrar as a right. 13. 13. In the facts of the case, in view of discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the present writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. There shall be no order as to cost.