Judgment 1. The petitioner-appellant Raj Ballav Tiwary brought a writ petition claiming that he was officiating on the post of "Examiner of Doubtful Records". The grievance of the petitioner-appellant is that he should have received a revised pay scale, a promotion and a position on the substantive post as a Director and the rest follows the consequential benefits. If all three are granted then due benefits as post retirement benefits also, perhaps, increase. 2. Between the post of the petitioner-appellant as "Examiner of Doubtful Records" and his case is as much doubtful because in his representation, which he made on 28 August, 2000 there is not a whisper that at any time between 2000 and 1996, a period of four years since he was officiating, the petitioner had laid a claim to what he claims now. 3. The balance which remains is a matter of selection if indeed the petitioner-appellant could hold the post of a Director with confidence. 4. The court does not find anything incorrect in the order on the writ petition. 5. Dismissed.