JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.4.2000 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1451 of 1993 dismissing the same. 2. The aforesaid O.A. was filed by the instant petitioner with a prayer for a direction to give him promotion to the rank of Additional Transport Officer (Stores) from the rank of Assistant Store Keeper in place of opposite party No. 6 of the instant writ petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Store Keeper in the Central-Workshop of the Directorate of Health vide order dated 3.3.1969 temporarily,but was confirmed later on. The Central Workshop was manned by two officers, namely, Store Keeper and Store Superintendent. The duty of the Store Keeper is to control the store and look to its maintenance. The Store Superintendent is in exclusive charge of the Store of the Central Workshop. The post of the Store Superintendent was upgraded to that of Additional Transport Officer (Stores), which was made a Class II post, in the same line being exclusively created for supervision of the Store. But no rule existed or framed describing the channel of promotion to the post of Addl. Transport Officer (Stores). - The post of Junior Store Keeper was carrying pay' scale of Rs. 950-1500 whereas the pay scale of Addl. Transport Officer (stores) was Rs. 2000-3500/ There were three scales of pay in between Junior Store Keeper and Addl. Transport Officer such as, Rs. 975/- to Rs. 1660/- for Mechanics and Electrician Rs. 1350/- to Rs. 2200/- for Garage Supervisor and Rs. 1400/- to Rs. 2300/- for Foreman / Senior Mechanic. 4. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory Rule it cannot be said that a person holding the post of Junior Store Keeper has right to be considered for promotion automatically to the post of Addl. Transport Officer (Stores). The case of opposite party No. 6, who was the senior most Foreman was considered by the D.P.C. along with other nine eligible persons for promotion to the post of Addl. Transport Officer and the D.P.C recommended his name for promotion considering his seniority and suitability. Transport Officer (Stores). The case of opposite party No. 6, who was the senior most Foreman was considered by the D.P.C. along with other nine eligible persons for promotion to the post of Addl. Transport Officer and the D.P.C recommended his name for promotion considering his seniority and suitability. However, the recommendation of the D.P.C. has been sent to the OPSC for concurrence which has not been done so far and opposite party No. 6 has been allowed to hold the post of Addl. Transport Officer on ad hoc basis by order of the Government. 5. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances,the petitioner cannot claim party with opposite party No. 6 who was the senior most Foremen at the time of his ad hoc appointment to the post of Addl. Transport Officer. There was no illegality in considering the name of opposite party No. 6 for the post of Addl. Transport Officer by the D.P.C. as he was in the higher pay scale than the petitioner. There was no statutory rule by which the petitioner could be considered for promotion to the post of Addl. Transport officer. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we find no impropriety or manifest error of law in the impugned order passed, by the Tribunal. The writ petition is misconceived and is therefore dismissed. Pradip Mohanty, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed