ORDER Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The contention raised is that the source of recruitment for the promotional post should also be made from the stream of Class III employees working in the Zonal Office and Transport Commissioner Office. It is contended that the promotion rules ought to have been modified in terms of the proposal made by the Transport Commissioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by not accepting the aforesaid proposal injustice is being caused to the members of the petitioners’ association and, therefore, this Court should intervene and direct the State Government to provide for the aforesaid stream of promotional avenues as claimed by the petitioners. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel the promotional avenues provided for are in respect of a different class of employees and discrimination cannot be alleged. This Court would have no jurisdiction to interfere in the same under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In the instant case, the State Government has taken a decision not to accept the proposal of the Transport Commissioner. In such a situation it cannot be said that there is discrimination against the petitioners. There is no disparity as alleged to the extent of arbitrariness and it is a mere policy decision. It is open to the Government to accept or not to accept the recommendation of the Transport Commissioner and unless and until any violation of the constitutional guarantee is demonstrated this Court would not interfere with such a decision. The rules of recruitment are within the realm of the employer. See for reference Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, 2008 (10) SCC 59 to 63. 6. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.