JEGEMENT The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "For grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant promotion to the post of Fuel Technologist with effect from the date of his eligibility i.e. since 14.2.1994 at par with Electrical Executive Engineer (Selection Grade) with all monetary and consequential benefits without any delay and for maintenance of status quo with regard to office order no. 5548 dated 27.10.1989 read with office order no. 6328 dated 19.12.1990 in terms of order dated 24.10.89 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7904 of 1989." , 2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that since he had been working as Assistant Fuel Technologist , therefore, he was entitled to be promoted as Fuel Technologist. In Para-30 of his petition, the petitioner has quoted as follows: "Even the matter relating to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Fuel Technologist was' discussed in the meeting held by the Departmental Promotion Committee which would unequivocally show that the petitioner is the only candidate holding such post in the hierarchy of Fuel Technologist with effect from 14.2.1989 in the scale of Rs. 3,300-4,950 which is at par with Electrical Executive Engineer and he has completed 7 years." 3. This part of the pleadings, now when put to the learned counsel, falls on the ground that these things are not substantiated by any document. The only document relied in support of this assertion is Annexure-13, wherein an office note has been prepared to the effect that this is to be submitted to the DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee), which was never considered. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is also based on a misconception and false assertion in the writ petition. 4. The qualifications for being appointed as Fuel Technologist are that the person concerned should be a graduate in Fuel Technology and having vast experience with special training in Thermal Power Station. The petitioner lacks both these qualifications. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner, according to the respondents, was not required to be considered at all. 5. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to show as to how he qualifies for the post of Fuel Technologist. The petitioner lacks both these qualifications. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner, according to the respondents, was not required to be considered at all. 5. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to show as to how he qualifies for the post of Fuel Technologist. On the contrary, even submitted that literally the petitioner could not be promoted as Fuel Technologist as per the requirement of the post. This is also an admitted position that the post of Fuel Technologist is not a promotional post and it is an excadre post,' which is required to be filled by direct recruitment. This is not a promotional avenue and in that view of the matter also the petitioner could not have been promoted to the said post, according to the respondents. The petitioner's case squarely rests on two premises; one is Annexure-13 and another is that he was working as Assistant Fuel Technologist since 1989 and therefore he was required to be promoted. 6. The petitioner has not been able to bring to our notice any Rules to this effect that any Assistant Fuel Technologist having worked for a long period was required to be promoted. Admittedly, there was no promotional avenue because the Fuel Technologist is not a promotional post and therefore very basis of the claim of the petitioner was based on a misconceived notion. The petitioner also lays his claim on the basis of a Resolution of the Board which related to the Electrical Executive Engineer, which is enclosed as Annexure-8. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such kind of Resolution having been passed in relation to the Electrical Executive Engineer, the benefit should be extended to the petitioner also. 7. We are afraid that this kind of analogy that a Resolution passed in relation to one post should also be extended to another post, is not only misconceived but it is asking something which is not related or maintainable for the petitioner. 8. 7. We are afraid that this kind of analogy that a Resolution passed in relation to one post should also be extended to another post, is not only misconceived but it is asking something which is not related or maintainable for the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid, where the post is not a promotional post but is ex-cadre post, no promotion can be granted to the petitioner, who has contradicted himself by making wrong assertion that his case was considered by DPC which was not made out by Annexure-3 and therefore the petitioner is making false statement in the petition and in that view of the matter the petitioner can be held guilty of making false claim. Further the petitioner's qualifications are not as such, which entails him any claim for the post for which the present petition is filed. Apart from this, the representation of the petitioner to this effect has been rejected by the respondents on 29th October, 1998 with the following observations: 1. The post of Fuel Technologist is an ex-cadre post i.e. outside the cadre to which you belong as such this does not come in the line of your promotion. 2. The post of Fuel Technologist is a recruitment post and that cannot be filled-up by promotion. 3. The minimum technical qualification prescribed for recruitment to the post of Fuel Technologist is graduate in Fuel Technologist with special training in Thermal Power Station, which you do not possess Therefore, your representation for promotion to the post of Fuel Technologist is rejected. 9. This rejection of the representation of the petitioner has not been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. Since the claim of the petitioner for promotion has been rejected by a speaking order and that order has not been challenged, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to raise this grievance before this Court in any manner because unless the petitioner successfully contends and counters the required parameters which is not -delineated in the required representation, he cannot be considered for promotion. 10. We thus think that the claim of the petitioner is not liable to succeed and in that view of the matter the petition fails and the same is rejected. 10. We thus think that the claim of the petitioner is not liable to succeed and in that view of the matter the petition fails and the same is rejected. We would also reject alongwith this petition the amendment petition which was moved by the petitioner, inasmuch as we find that the amendment petition suffers from essential ingredients and the petitioner lacks basic requirement and therefore allowing the amendment application will have no significance, more particularly when the petitioner has retired in the year 2004 on July 31st. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the petition being merit less is rejected.