Judgment :- 1. The petitioner joined the Fisheries Department as Office Assistant, and his services were regularised on 05.10.1978. The petitioner is continuing on the same post. The seniority number of the petitioner in the cadre of Office Assistant is 36, and the next channel of promotion for the Office Assistant, is to the post of Fisheries Overseer Grade II. 2. The petitioner therefore filed number of representations requesting the respondents to promote him to the post of Fisheries Overseer Grade II, but the representations filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the post of Fisheries Overseer Grade II did not fall in the cadre of the petitioner, as the post of Office Assistant was not a feeder cadre, therefore he could not be considered for promotion. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of the representation, filed O.A.No.5629 of 1999, which was dismissed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, while rejecting the application, directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Fisheries, if qualified. 4. In compliance with the Interim orders of the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Joint Director of Fisheries issued directions to include the applicant's name in the panel of promotion to the post of Fishery Overseer Grade II, with a copy to the petitioner. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Joint Director of Fisheries found the petitioner to be fully qualified to be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Fishery Overseer Grade II, but in spite of the directions issued by the Joint Director, the name of the petitioner was not included. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, did not dispute that the post of Office Assistant is not a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Fishery Overseer Grade II. 7. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rules give power of relaxation to the Government, therefore, direction be issued to the Government to consider the case of the petitioner after relaxing the rules. 8. Tamil Nadu Fisheries Subordinate Service Rules, were amended with effect from 01.05.1993. As per the amended rules, the feeder cadre for the post of Fisheries Overseer Grade II is Fishery Guard and Fisherman, and not Office Assistant. 8. Tamil Nadu Fisheries Subordinate Service Rules, were amended with effect from 01.05.1993. As per the amended rules, the feeder cadre for the post of Fisheries Overseer Grade II is Fishery Guard and Fisherman, and not Office Assistant. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim promotion to the post of Fishery Overseer Grade II, not being in the feeder cadre. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the Governor has the power to deal with the case of any person or class of persons who have served in a Civil Capacity under the Government of Tamil Nadu or of any person or of any class of persons who have served as aforesaid or any candidate or class of candidates for appointment to a service, in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable. 10. The reading of the rule shows that power is with the Government to exercise the jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court cannot direct the Government to exercise the power under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules as the discretion is left to be exercised by the Government, unless it is shown, that by exercise of power under rule 48, some arbitrary decision has been taken to defeat the right of the petitioner, or where an employee is discriminated. In absence of material, the court cannot direct the state Government to relax the rules to promote ineligible person, when persons in cadre are available. 11. No material is placed on record showing that the power under Rule 48 of the Act has been exercised in favour of similarly situated person, so as to entitle the petitioner to claim equality or to challenge the exercise of power to be arbitrary. 12. In absence of any statutory obligation on the part of the respondent, it is not possible to issue writ as prayed for. 13. There being no merit in the writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.