JUDGEMENT R.M.Doshit, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by the Lady Extension Officers appointed under the Integrated Rural Development Programme under the District Rural Development Agency, to challenge the constitutional validity of Rules 5 and 7 of the Bihar Lady Extension Officer Cadre Rules, 2008 . The impugned Rules 5 and 7 read as under: Rule 5: Mode of recruitment; Age limit and other requisites etc. New appointment will not be made in this cadre. Posts of employees who have been appointed earlier and working will be abolished after their retirement. Rule 7: Appointment by promotion. There will be no promotional structure but the members of this Cadre shall avail the benefit of ACP. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Uma Kant Shukla has appeared for the Petitioners. He has submitted that challenge to the impugned Rules 5 and 7 is on the ground of violation of principle of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He has submitted that under the impugned Rule 5 no further appointment shall be made on the post of Lady Extension Officers. On retirement of the present incumbent the post shall be abolished. Under impugned Rule 7 the promotional avenues hitherto available to the Lady Extension Officers has been done away with. The only benefit conferred upon the Lady Extension Officers is that of Assured Career Progression. He has submitted that the Lady Extension Officers are similarly situated as Anganbari Supervisors. The selection process, pay scale etc. are similar. For Anganbari Supervisors the relevant Rules provide for promotion to 25% of the posts of Child Development Project Officer. Such benefit has not been conferred upon the Lady Extension Officers. He has relied upon the order dated 17th August 2006 made by the District Magistrate, Supaul to buttress his argument that the cadres of Lady Extension Officers and that of Anganbari Supervisors are similar. Mr. Shukla has also relied upon the judgment of this Court (Coram: Mridula Mishra, J.) dated 6th February 2008 (Annexure-1) to the writ petition. 3. The above referred judgment dated 6th February 2008 is rendered by the learned single Judge in the writ petitions filed by certain Lady Extension Officers for extension of service benefits and to challenge the orders of transfer. 3. The above referred judgment dated 6th February 2008 is rendered by the learned single Judge in the writ petitions filed by certain Lady Extension Officers for extension of service benefits and to challenge the orders of transfer. Under the said judgment, the learned single Judge has observed "Since they were appointed against the permanent posts as such definite service conditions Rule was required to be framed in their case also as in case of other non-gazetted government employees". The learned single Judge further directed "to first decide the service conditions of the Petitioners as well as their cadre only thereafter any transfer order can be passed". 4. It is evident that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the State Government has framed the above referred Bihar Lady Extension Officer Cadre Rules, 2008 . Under the said Rules the State Government has, inter alia, conferred the status of Government servant upon the Lady Extension Officers and such other benefits as are admissible to regular Government servant. It is evident that the intention of the State Government is not to perpetuate the said cadre as indicated in Rule 5- "No further appointment shall be made in the cadre of Lady Extension Officers". In lieu of the promotional avenue, the Lady Extension Officers are allowed the benefit of Assured Career Progression. 5. The order dated 17th August 2006 relied upon by Mr. Shukla is that of deputation of a Lady Extension Officer as Anganbari Supervisor. The said order in no manner supports the contention that the cadre of Lady Extension Officers and of Anganbari Supervisors are identical or similar. 6. There is nothing in the pleadings to indicate that the Lady Extension Officers are similarly situated as that of Anganbari Supervisors. A similar selection process will not put two different cadres at par. For establishing similarity, the Petitioners ought to have indicated the nature of the duties required to be performed by the Lady Extension Officers and by the Anganbari Supervisors. In absence of such parity established before us, the claim for parity in the matter of promotional avenue requires to be rejected. No Government servant has a fundamental or an inherent right to promotion. Unless the right of promotion is conferred by the statutory provisions, the Government servant cannot claim the right of being considered for promotion. Though Mr. In absence of such parity established before us, the claim for parity in the matter of promotional avenue requires to be rejected. No Government servant has a fundamental or an inherent right to promotion. Unless the right of promotion is conferred by the statutory provisions, the Government servant cannot claim the right of being considered for promotion. Though Mr. Shukla has emphatically argued that impugned Rule 7 takes away the promotional avenue earlier available to the Lady Extension Officers, the argument is not established by the facts on record. 7. We see no merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Bihar Lady Extension Officer Cadre Rules, 2008. The petition is dismissed. 8. The parties will bear their own cost.