JUDGMENT 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that two colleagues of his, namely Manjit Singh and Ganesh Lal, Field Assistants, who were allowed to undergo training at Forest Guard Training School, Doomi (Akhnoor), latter on the basis of this additional qualification were promoted as Supervisor Grade-ll. It is submitted that the petitioner who was equally eligible for being sent for training was not so deputed, when Manjit Singh and Ganesh Lal were so sent. It is submitted that this factor led to non-promotion ofthe petitionertothe post of Supervisor Grade-ll. Petitioner submits that lateron he had undergone this training course also. He has stood first in this course. He submits that he be allowed the same benefits as have been allowed to two Field Assistants, namely, Manjit Singh and Ganesh Lal. 2. Respondents have filed objections. Stand taken by them is that there is Rules do not exist which may enable a person who has undergone this training course to seek promotion. It is submitted that if some concession has been shown to Manjit Singh and Ganesh Lal then a writ of mandamus cannot be claimed. It is submitted nobody has right to claim concession as a matter of right. Further claim of the petitioner is that he being a member of socially and educationally Backward Class should be given preference over and above Manjit Singh and Ganesh Lal. For this reliance is being placed on SRO 126 of 1994. 3. Stand of the respondents is that this SRO is not applicable. It is said that if the contents of this SRO are read then promotional benefit can be granted to only Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe and not to socially and educationally Backward Class. 4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of he opinion that petitioner is right in his submission that he should be given same treatment as has been given to Manjit Singh and Ganesh Lal. As rightly put there is no rule which debars granting of benefit of promotion if a person has passed the training course in question. If this be the position and if the respondents have taken an administrative decision to give promotion to those who have passed training course then these administrative decisions which are not contrary to Rule can be enforced. See Sant Ram v. Rajinder Lal AIR 1978 SC 1601. If this be the position and if the respondents have taken an administrative decision to give promotion to those who have passed training course then these administrative decisions which are not contrary to Rule can be enforced. See Sant Ram v. Rajinder Lal AIR 1978 SC 1601. Similar opinion has been expressed in K.P. Joseph v. Union of India 1973(1) SLR 910. 5. In view of the above this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to implement the administrative decision taken by them to promote those who have under gone training and on the basis of which Manjit Singh and Ganesh Lal were promoted. This decision is not opposed to any statutory rule. Therefore, petitioner is held entitled to same treatment as has been given to Manjit Singh and Ganesh Lal. This benefit would be given with effect from the date passing of training course in question. 6. Disposed of as such.