ORDER : Aggrieved of order contained in Memo dated 03.10.2012, whereby the promotion granted to the petitioner has been cancelled, the present writ-petition has been filed. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner, who was initially appointed as Family Planning Worker in Health Department in the year 1974, it is pleaded that, was adjusted to the post of Superior Field Worker on 13.02.1978. Subsequently, he started working to the post of Clerk from 25.09.1986. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the State Malaria Officer-respondent no.5 accorded approval for his promotion to the post of Clerk. Claiming promotion on the ground that the petitioner who is junior to him, one Chandrabali Singh approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.6450 of 2010. During the pendency of the said writ-petition, promotion granted to the petitioner was withdrawn and consequently he also moved this Court in W.P.(S) No.5008 of 2011. This Court quashed the order whereby promotion granted to the petitioner was cancelled, however, granted liberty to the authority to proceed in the matter and take a decision, in accordance with law. The writ-petition filed by Chandrabali Singh also stood disposed of vide order dated 18.10.2011, granting liberty to him to file a fresh representation on which the respondent no.3 had to take a decision within 8 weeks. In compliance of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court in W.P.(S) Nos.6450 of 2010 and 5008 of 2011, impugned order dated 03.10.2012 has been passed. 4. Before examining the rival contentions, it needs to mention that in the Malaria Control Programme no rule for promotion has been framed. It also stands admitted that all posts are ex-cadre posts. The respondents have taken a stand that the employees working in Malaria Control Programme cannot be promoted from one post to another post. The petitioner has been granted benefits of 1st ACP on 14.09.2007 which was approved by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 12.08.2010. It also appears that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the State Malaria Officer afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as Chandrabali Singh. The impugned order dated 03.10.2012 takes note of rival contentions. The respondent no.5 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has noticed that 24 years after his appointment, the petitioner was granted promotion to a post which is not the promotional post. 5. The impugned order dated 03.10.2012 takes note of rival contentions. The respondent no.5 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has noticed that 24 years after his appointment, the petitioner was granted promotion to a post which is not the promotional post. 5. The contention, that after working for 24 years on the post of Clerk the promotion granted to the petitioner cannot be recalled, is mis-conceived. The respondent no.5 has taken the decision in compliance of order dated 18.10.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No.5008 of 2011. It is a matter of record that on 25.09.1986, since when he started working on the post of Clerk, he was neither appointed nor granted promotion to the post of Clerk. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to letter dated 21.04.1992 contended that the State Malaria Officer is the appointing authority for Class-IV and Class-III employees and thus, petitioner was granted promotion by a competent authority. However, the petitioner has failed to controvert the stand taken by the respondents that no recruitment rules for promotion of the employees working in Malaria Control Programme has been framed. It has also not been disputed that all posts under the Programme are ex-cadre posts and promotion from one post to another post is not permissible. 6. I am of the opinion that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Clerk does not suffer from any infirmity in law. Reliance on “Narender Chadha & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.” reported in AIR 1986 SC 638 is completely mis-conceived. In the said case the applicants were promoted in contravention of the Rules, however, they continued on the said post for more than 15 years. The dispute arose between two sets of appointees for seniority. Taking note of the Rule whereunder the government has power to relax, the Supreme Court held that for counting seniority it can be assumed that they were granted promotion by relaxing the Rules. 7. It has been brought on record that retiral benefits to the petitioner, which are admissible in law, have been paid to him. 8. The writ-petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.