JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners have challenged the office order dated 8.9.2005 (Annexure-8), by which respondent Nos. 5 to 8 were appointed to officiate as Assistant Headmaster on account of their promotion; on the ground that the rightful claim of the petitioners for such promotion has been ignored, and for consequential reliefs. 3. The relevant facts, in short, are as follows. On 5.3.2004, a notice was published inviting applications for filling up the post of Assistant Headmaster for various High School/Higher Secondary School of Damodar Valley Corporation- respondents ( DVC for short) from the DVC Teachers, who fulfill the condition as per para (ix) of item 6 of Office Memorandum No. PL-119/92-97 dated 30th October, 1992, quoted therein as follows: ix) The post of Asstt. Headmaster of Senior Section would be filled up by selection through internal advertisement in which Post Graduate Teachers and those Trained Graduate Teachers (with P.G. Degree) whose erstwhile juniors have been promoted as Post Graduate Teacher would be eligible to apply 4. Petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 to 8 applied. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 were selected for promotion by the departmental promotion committee ( D.P.C.). 5. Mr. R. Krishna, appearing for the petitioners, did hot press the writ petition with regard to petitioner No. 1 as he did not qualify. However, with regard to petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, he submitted that they being Post Graduate Teachers were eligible for promotion but respondent Nos. 5 to 8 have been promoted ignoring the case of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. He submitted that in the gradation list, petitioners were seniors than respondent Nos. 5 to 8. He further submitted that only by the office order dated 7.7.2005 ( Annexure-9), it has been decided that in future for promotion to the said post, trained Post Graduate Teachers will be eligible to apply. Relying on N.T. Devin Katti and Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. he submitted that petitioners cases were to be considered in view of the eligibility criteria in the notice dated 5.3.2004 ( Annexure-6), under which, petitioners being untrained Post Graduate Teachers could also apply. He lastly submitted that stand of DVC in the counter affidavit is that petitioners were not promoted as they were untrained. 6. Mr. he submitted that petitioners cases were to be considered in view of the eligibility criteria in the notice dated 5.3.2004 ( Annexure-6), under which, petitioners being untrained Post Graduate Teachers could also apply. He lastly submitted that stand of DVC in the counter affidavit is that petitioners were not promoted as they were untrained. 6. Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned senior counsel appearing for the DVC, submitted that the promotional post of the Assistant Headmaster were to be filled up by selection. Two categories of Teachers were eligible to apply, namely Post Graduate Teachers and the trained Graduate Teachers with Post Graduate Degree. The D.P.C. was justified in selecting the trained Graduate Teachers with Post Graduate Degree, over the untrained Post Graduate Teachers. In case, the trained Graduate Teachers with Post Graduate Degree were not available, then the untrained Post Graduate Teachers could be considered but as the trained Teachers were available, they were preferred than the petitioners, who were admittedly untrained. This is why in the counter affidavit, the DVC has taken the stand that petitioners were untrained and therefore they were not promoted. 7. I find force in the submission of Mr. Gadodia. There is no dispute with the ratio of N.T. Devin Katti (Supra) that-selection should normally be regulated by the then existing Rules and any amendment pending the selection should not affect the validity of selection made by the Selecting Authority but the said ratio is not relevant in the present case. Two categories of Teachers were eligible to apply for being promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster. One was the Post Graduate Teachers and other was the trained Graduate Teachers with Post Graduate Degree. Accordingly, petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 to 8 were eligible to apply. The said Clause (ix) clearly indicates that such posts were to be filled up by selection. Therefore, the D.P.C. could select the candidates from any of the categories. It appears that as respondent Nos. 5 to 8, who were trained Graduate Teachers with Post Graduate Degree, were available, they were preferred over the petitioners, who were untrained Post Graduate Teachers. It is not a case of applying the eligibility criteria contained in the office order dated 7.7.2005 (Annexure-9) retrospectively, under which in future only the Trained Post Graduate Teachers and the Trained Graduate Teachers with Post Graduate Degree were eligible to apply. It is not a case of applying the eligibility criteria contained in the office order dated 7.7.2005 (Annexure-9) retrospectively, under which in future only the Trained Post Graduate Teachers and the Trained Graduate Teachers with Post Graduate Degree were eligible to apply. Admittedly, petitioners were eligible to apply as per the notice dated 5.3.2004 and accordingly they applied. They were called in interview also. The respondents are not saying that petitioners being untrained were not eligible to apply in view of subsequent office order dated 7.7.2005 and therefore their case was not considered. In fact, the petitioners cases were also considered but respondents 5 to 8, who were also trained were preferred and selected by the D.P.C. 8. It is settled law that a candidate has only a right of consideration and he cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. I do not find any error in the decision of the D.P.C. in promoting respondent Nos. 5 to 8. I am not inclined to interfere with the wisdom of the departmental promotion committee. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.