JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, a Personal Assistant of this Court, has laid this petition for assailing the communications dated 20th of March 2013 (Annex.8), and 2nd of August 2013 (Annex.10), whereby his representations regarding procedure of the efficiency test for promotion to the post of Sr.P.A. were rejected and consequently his prayer for re-conducting the entire process for promotion to the post of Sr.P.A. by extending certain relaxations was also declined. 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this writ petition, are that at the threshold of his service career the petitioner was recruited as Stenographer in the District & Sessions Court, Hanumangarh on 30th of March 1996, and subsequently his services were transferred to this Court on 3rd of July 1997 on the post of Stenographer. While in service, the petitioner availed promotion to the post of Personal Assistant in the year 2006. The genesis of this litigation is that a notice dated 30th of October 2012 was issued by the respondents, whereby Personal Assistants working with the High Court were informed to convey their willingness and consent within two weeks for appearing in the efficiency test for promotion to the post of Sr.P.A. subject to their eligibility. In response to the said notice, the petitioner conveyed his consent by letter dated 8th of November 2012. On receiving the consent letter of the petitioner, the efficiency test was scheduled for 16th of December 2012, but subsequently the date was changed and the efficiency test was ordered to be conducted on 1st of January 2013. In the communication dated 12th of December 2012 (Annex.4), whereby the efficiency test for promotion was rescheduled for 1st of January 2013, it was clearly stipulated that transcription in longhand shall have to be made on computers provided by the office. The said communication was followed by yet another communication dated 22nd of December 2012 containing the recitals "computer provided by office for transcription in longhand will have no spell check system and keys for copy, cut, paste disabled." The petitioner has specifically averred in the writ petition that he is a Hindi Stenographer having experience of Hindi typing and the Hindi font used in the High Court is Gist-OT-Typing Tool, as such he is having experience of Gist-OT-Typing Tool font. The grievance of the petitioner is that while taking up his efficiency test held on 1st of February 2013, information was divulged that Hindi typing will be in the Devlys font only. On apprising about the general instructions to the candidates in this behalf, the petitioner raised objections by pointing out that many letters of Hindi and keys are different in Gist-OT-Typing Tool font and Devlys font and in view of consistent practice in the High Court that only Gist-OT-Typing Tool fonts are used, he is having experience of the said fonts and this sudden change in the type of font has marred his chances to compete for the efficiency test to earn promotion in the cadre of Sr.P.A. After completion of the efficiency test, the petitioner with his other colleague Roop Singh Rajpurohit submitted representation dated 3rd of January 2013 (Annex.7) but the said representation was turned down by the Registrar (Admn.) on 20th of March 2013. After rejection of the aforesaid representation, the petitioner yet again ventilated his grievances by his representation dated 4th of June 2013 but the said representation too was rejected on 2nd of August 2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. P.S. Bhati, has strenuously urged that not conveying the petitioner and other eligible candidates before conducting efficiency test for promotion to the post of Sr.P.A. about the Hindi font to be used in the efficiency test, has seriously prejudiced their right of consideration. While referring to subsequent notice of the High Court dated 12th of June 2013, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in the said notice it was mentioned with clarity and precision that Personal Assistants (Hindi) appearing for the typing test scheduled for 7th of July 2013 shall be provided computers installed with Krutidev font. Dr. Bhati submits that the subsequent notice makes it crystal clear that it was desirable from the High Court to have intimated the candidates about the font to be installed in the computers and by not doing so the High Court has deprived the petitioner from his just right of meaningful consideration of his candidature for promotion. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. 5. On objective analysis of the afflictions of the petitioner, we are unable to subscribe the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner that type of Hind font viz. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. 5. On objective analysis of the afflictions of the petitioner, we are unable to subscribe the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner that type of Hind font viz. Devlys insisted in the efficiency test in place of Gist-OT-Typing Tool font has prejudiced the cause of the petitioner in any manner. Moreover, notice dated 30th of October 2012 (Annex.1) and the communication dated 12th of December 2012 (Annex.4) nowhere envisage about the type of font to be installed in the computer. The type of font for the purpose of examination was the sole prerogative of the employer and an incumbent aspirant for appointment/promotion cannot be allowed to insist for a particular type of font for the efficiency test. The fact remains that the petitioner as well as the other candidates, who were Personal Assistants (Hindi), were provided transcript in Hindi and asked to type the said transcript to prove their efficiency for earning promotion. In this view of the matter, the type of font in Hindi in terms of general instructions viz., Devlys during efficiency test has neither violated any of the legal rights of the petitioner, nor this sort of action has the effect of infringing any of his fundamental rights. It is trite that in the matter of promotion, right of an individual is that of consideration and no incumbent can claim promotion as a matter of right. 6. In view of above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter, and therefore, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******