Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner retired as an Overseer on 1.10.2002. After retirement in the year 2004 he filed a writ application challenging a communication dated 20.6.2002, which is contained in Annexure-12. By virtue of this cornmunication the representation of the petitioner with regard to promotion has been rejected. 3. Petitioner joined the services of the respondents as a Mate in the year 1966. On 29th May, 1976 he was promoted as Overseer. Thereafter petitioner has not been able to earn any promotion. From the records it emerges that it is not a case of non-consideration. At subsequent stages case of petitioner was considered by the D.P.C. but since his A.C. Rs, did not reach the bench-mark he could not be recommended for promotion by the D.P.C. Certain adverse remarks were also recorded against him, reflection of the same are also there on record. 4. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondents has been filed and they have stated that petitioner had no technical qualification but was only a high school pass. In other words he was a general category candidate and non-diploma holder. Promotion for such people have to be considered against 20% of the vacancies, which are available and in those 20% whenever the D.P.C. was held for promotion, the D.P.C. did not find him reaching the bench-mark. The minimum bench-mark for promotion is Good in any A.C.R.They further state in the counter affidavit that it is not a case of discrimination or nonconsideration. The petitioners case as and when the occasion arose was taken up but since he did not qualify in terms of the A.C.R. appraisal he could not be granted promotion in question. Petitioner has now retired in the year 2002 and, therefore, there is no occasion for respondents to consider his case for promotion thereafter. 5. From the averments and the stand which has been taken by the respondents it is apparent that it is not a case of discrimination. If the petitioner has failed to earn his promotion it was because of his own conduct becuase the competent authority did not find him up to mark in his performance and annual appraisal. If that is the position then there is no infirmity in the communication which has been sent to the petitioner contained in Annexure-12. 6. The writ application is dismissed.