JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for all the respondents. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner joined in the post of Assistant Teacher on 30.10.1987. Surprisingly, the writ petitioner is totally silent about whether he had cleared the Elementary Teacher’s Education from the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in one go or not. 3. The respondents by filing the reply has specifically asserted that the petitioner could not complete the said course/ training in one go. Along with the reply, the respondents have produced one proforma for furnishing proposal for the benefit of Training, Incentive as per the Finance Department Notification No. F.6(1)-FIN(PC)/08 dated 06.01.2011 [Annexure R.1 to the reply]. 4. It would be apparent that the petitioner made his first attempt to clear the said course/training in the year 2007 and he made the second attempt in the year 2008. The petitioner has not disputed that position. But the petitioner has raised another question that those who have not completed the training/course in one go have been given the benefit under Rule 13(v) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 following the system that prevailed prior to 05.05.2009. 5. Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted further that the petitioner may also be given the advance increment instead of lump sum financial benefit as accorded by the respondents. 6. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has categorically submitted that by filing the reply, the respondents have denied that benefit of the training incentive in the shape of one advance increment was given to the persons whose names are appearing in the Para-12 of the writ petition as they did complete the course/training in one go. 7. Be that as it may, if some persons are given such benefit, in contravention of the rule that cannot create a right in favour of any other person who does qualify in accordance to the relevant rule, to approach this court on the ground that the executive has practised discrimination and thus the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India would come to rescue of such person. Rule 13(1) of the ROP Rules, 1999 deals with training incentive. Rule 13(1) of the ROP Rules, 1999 deals with training incentive. Para- V under the said Rule 13 is relevant and that provides as under : “(v) In respect of following categories of employees the existing system of providing training incentive in the form of one increment is replaced with lump sum incentive grant indicated in table below :- Category of training Category of employee involved Duration of training Lump sum incentive amount B. Ed. Teacher One year Rs. 3000/- T. Ed. Teacher Six months Rs. 2000/- CETE Teacher Six months Rs. 2000/- UGBT Teacher One year Rs. 2500/- CPE Teacher Six months Rs. 1500/- VLW training Agri Asst 1+1 = 2 years Rs. 2500/- Forestry training Forester One year Rs. 2500/- B.P. Ed PI (recruited under old RR) One year Rs. 3000/- Accounts Clerks Six months Rs. 2000/- Note : This system of providing lump sum incentive grant will take effect from 1st January, 2009 for all cases who have completed training on or after 1.1.2009.” 8. There is no dispute that the said rule has been supplemented by way of Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay](5th Amendment) Rules, 2009 by inserting a Note-2 after the existing note appended below Rule 13(1)(v) as under : “The employees who had completed the full training course and appeared in the end of term examination prior to 05.05.2009 i.e. before publication of the TSCS (RP) Rules, 2009 and passed the examination in all subjects in one attempt, shall be exempted from the operation of Rules 13(1)(v) and will be entitled to training incentive in the form of advance increment.” 9. Having considered the averments and the replies thereof, and on appreciation of the provisions made under Rule 13(1)(v) of the ROP Rules, 1999 read with the amendment as incorporated by the Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay](5th Amendment) Rules, 2009 this court is of the considered view that since the petitioner could not complete the training programme in one go the petitioner cannot get the training incentive in the form of advance increment and as such, this writ petition stands dismissed as bereft of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.