JUDGMENT : Indra Prasanna Mukherji, J. 1. The writ petitioner is working as a Security Officer with the Tea Board. 2. He wants to take the benefit of draft bye-laws, namely, Tea Board (Recruitment & Promotion) Bye-Laws, 2009, which are proposed by the Tea Board in super-session of the existing Tea Board (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Officers appointed by Government) Rules, 1971. 3. Now, according to the draft bye-laws, the cadre of Security Officer is one of the feeder posts to the post of Assistant Director (Resource Development) Pay Band (2) with Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/-. 4. Under section 50(1)(d) of the Tea Act, 1953 the Tea Board has the power to make bye-laws consistent with that Act relating, inter-alia, to the promotion of its officers. Under section 50(2) no bye-law shall have any effect unless it is confirmed by the Central Government and published in the Official Gazette. 5. Therefore, the making of draft promotional rules by the Tea Board is part of a statutory exercise. The bye-laws, after the above approval, are equivalent to subordinate legislation, in my opinion. Hence the draft bye-laws could never have bestowed any right upon the writ petitioner. 6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that although these bye-laws were not formally approved by the Central Government, effect had been given to them by making the appointment of Assistant Director from the cadre of Section Officer. Mr. Choudhuri, learned Senior Advocate, replied to this by stating that under the existing rules an Assistant Director could be appointed from the cadre of Section Officer and this position was admitted in the writ petition. I have considered the promotional ladder and the writ petition. I think he is right. 7. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that one Mr. Roy Choudhury had been appointed on an ad hoc basis taking the necessary approval pending sanction of the proposed bye-laws by the Central Government. Therefore, the appointment of Mr. Roy Choudhury could not create any right or expectation in the writ petitioner because it was done as a special case and in special circumstances. I accept such submission. 8. I only observe that the annexure to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Tea Board show that on 30th June 2009 these bye-laws were made by the Tea Board in super-session of the existing rules. I accept such submission. 8. I only observe that the annexure to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Tea Board show that on 30th June 2009 these bye-laws were made by the Tea Board in super-session of the existing rules. On 18th August 2009 these draft bye-laws were forwarded to the Director to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, New Delhi. I would only observe that these bye-laws are considered as expeditiously as possible by the Central Government so that they can take effect. In case the bye-laws as framed are accepted by the Central Government the writ petitioner would have a real prospect of promotion. But at present, I do not see his having any right. 9. This writ application is disposed of with the above observations. 10. The connected application is also disposed of accordingly. 11. All parties are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. Writ petition is disposed of.