JUDGMENT S.N. PRASAD, J. - This writ petitionis under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 23.7.2015 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 800 (C) of 2013 has been assailed, by which the claim of the petitioner for consideration for his promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Nosology has been rejected. 2. The brief fact of the petitioner is that he having wide experience in the field and also being recommended by the C.D.M.O., Cuttack and the Director of Health Services, Odisha to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director, Nosology, he has not been promoted while the similarly situated employees have already been promoted to the post. When the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed, he approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 800 (C) of 2013, but the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the grievance, against which the instant writ petition has been filed. The ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected is that he is not possessing the requisite qualification as per the guideline dated 5.12.1975 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Planning, Department of Family Planning, Government of India and since the post is not to be filled up by way of promotion, rather the same is to be filled up through the recommendation of the Odisha Public Commission. But according to the petitioner, the rule contained in the guideline issued in the year 1975 is not for the post of Assistant Director, Nosology, rather it is for the post of Statistician, hence, it is wrong to say that he does not possess the requisite qualifications. So far as the recommendation to be made by the Odisha Public Service Commission, it has been submitted that this has not been followed with respect to the other co-employees similarly situated. 3. The stand of the opposite party-State is that the post having its nomenclature as Assistant Director, Nosology is equivalent to the post of Statistician and as such, in absence of the rule having not been framed by the State, the guideline issued by the Government of India, Miistry of Health and Family Planning dated 5.12.1975 has been adopted, wherein the qualification of Statistician is prescribed. The qualification for a Statistician is Master’s Degree in Statistics/Mathematics with (with Statistics) of a recognized University or equivalent or Degree of recognized University equivalent with Mathematics/ Statistics as a subject and two years Post-Graduate training in Statistics at a recognized institution with an experience of three years in Social Surveys and Social research, being an essential qualification apart from desirable qualification or having experience of organizing field surveys and carrying evaluation work and experience in the field or Demography, Family Planning and vital Statistics, the petitioner having not possessed the said qualification, cannot be considered for the post of Assistant Director, Nosology. It has been submitted that the claim of the petitioner that the other similarly situated has been considered for promotion as Assistant Director, Nosology, is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the record since the petitioner is relying upon the notification dated 30.06.2010 pertaining to promotion to the rank of Assistant Director (Vital Statistics), which has nothing to do with the post in question in the instant case, hence, the petitioner cannot claim similarity. It has further been submitted that since no recommendation has been made by the Departmental Promotion and there cannot be any recommendation reason being that the post is to be filed up through Odisha Public Service Commission being a Class-II post, referring to the letter dated 16.09.2009 issued by the Director of Family Welfare, Odisha which the petitioner shows as the order of recommendation, it is not an order of recommendation, rather it is the letter of forwarding by the Director, Health Services to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Govt. of Odisha, for consideration of his case, in pursuance thereof, his case has been considered, but not found eligible to be promoted. It has been submitted that the Tribunal after taking into consideration these vital aspects, has refused to interfere with the grievance of the petitioner. Hence, the same has got no infirmity. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The petitioner’s sole grievance is that he is eligible candidate to be promoted as Assistant Director, Nosology. He put his reliance upon the fact that the State Govt. Hence, the same has got no infirmity. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The petitioner’s sole grievance is that he is eligible candidate to be promoted as Assistant Director, Nosology. He put his reliance upon the fact that the State Govt. has not come up with any statutory rule governing the field for appointment to the post of Assistant Director, Nosology and as such, by virtue of his wide experience in the field, he is the fittest person to be appointed/promoted as Assistant Director, Nosology. 6. We have examined the contention of the petitioner from the materials available on record and have found that the Government has come up with an advertisement to fill up the post of Assistant Director, Nosology to be filled up through Odisha Public Service Commission. It is not in dispute that there is no specific rule governing the field to fill up the post of Assistant Director, Nosology, but in absentia, the Government has adopted the guideline formulated by the Govt. of India through Ministry of Health and Family Planning (Department of Family Planning), which contains the eligibility condition for appointment of Statistician. The State Government has adopted the said qualification for the post of Assistant Director, Nosology, which we have gathered from the specific stand taken by the State, which has not been disputed by the petitioner. As per the guideline, the essential qualification for the post of Statistician is as follows: (i) Masters’ Degree in Statistics/Mathematics (with statistics) of a recognized University or equivalent or Degree of recognized University equivalent with Mathematics/Statistics as a subject and two years Post-Graduate training in Statistics at a recognized institution. (ii) 3 years experience in social Surveys and Social research.” 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has got no requisite qualification as has been provided in the guideline quoted above, but by virtue of his experience, he wants to be promoted as Assistant Director, Nosology. There is no dispute in the proposition that if there is no rule of recruitment, appointment cannot be made either by direct recruitment or by promotion, but it is also not in dispute that in absence of the rule, if the Govt. There is no dispute in the proposition that if there is no rule of recruitment, appointment cannot be made either by direct recruitment or by promotion, but it is also not in dispute that in absence of the rule, if the Govt. thought it proper to adopt any particular rule governing the field of eligibility condition for a particular post and if the nature of the post is same, the same cannot be questioned by the Court of law unless it is arbitrary. But the case of the petitioner is not on arbitraryness of the State authority, rather specific ground has been taken that in absence of the rule, he cannot be said to be ineligible to hold the post. Since the Govt. has adopted by way of policy decision, the eligibility condition for the post of Assistant Director, Nosology as has been provided in the guideline of the Government of India through its Ministry of Health and Family Planning, we have got no reason to question that policy decision being the decision of the State Govt. in this regard. The admitted position in this case is that the petitioner has not possessed the required qualification as has been provided in the guideline issued in the year 1975 by the Govt. of India having been adopted by the State of Odisha, as would be evident from the affidavit filed by the State, which has not been rebutted in spite of the time having been granted by the State, which has not been rebutted in spite of the time having been granted by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Not only that, this Court has also given ample opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the rule governing the field, but he failed to do so, rather he has admitted that there is no rule in this regard. Since the Govt. by virtue of the policy decision has adopted the eligibility condition for filling up of the post of Assistant Director, Nosology as per the guideline issued by the Govt. of India, as such, we are not entering into that aspect of the matter, which is not being challenged in this writ petition, fact remains that the petitioner is not having requisite qualification as per the guideline. 8. of India, as such, we are not entering into that aspect of the matter, which is not being challenged in this writ petition, fact remains that the petitioner is not having requisite qualification as per the guideline. 8. The second question raised by the petitioner is that he has been recommended for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Nosology and to substantiate his argument, he has relied upon the letter dated 9.4.2008 and 23.7.2009 as contained in Annexure-3 and 4 respectively. But on perusal of these two letters, we have found that the letter dated 9.4.2008 has been issued by the Joint Director, health Services by which the petitioner was sent for D.H.S. Training at his own cost with the reference that the petitioner possessed all the requisite qualification along with Diploma in health Statistics working under the health and Family Welfare Department as Malaria Supervisor and by virtue of this, he was recommended to submit his candidature for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Nosology, in terms thereof, the Director of Health Services vide letter as contained in letter No. 2885 dated 23.7.2009 has forwarded the same to the Government for his promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Nosology. We have also perused the communication dated 16.09.2009 issued by the Director of Family Welfare, Odisha wherein the name of the petitioner has been recommended to be sent to the Director of Health Services for sponsoring his name for appointment as Assistant Director, Nosology. Admittedly, the post of Assistant Director, Nosology is a Class-II post and for filling up of the post of Class-II post, the recommendation of the individual functionary is not the requirement, rather even if the post is to be filled up through promotion, the recommendation of the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee is required to be there, but we have not come across with any such document on record with respect to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee recommending the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Nosology and as such, the letter, as has been referred to by the petitioner treating the same as recommendation, cannot be said to be a recommendation for promotion in the eye of law. 9. 9. So far as the connection that similarly situated employees have been promoted and to that effect, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the notification dated 30.6.2010, on its perusal we have found that the said notification pertains to the post of Assistant Director (Vital Statistics), hence, the same has got no bearing with the post in question involved in the instant writ petition. 10. We have come across the document as contained in letter No. 473 dated 4.1.2013 and the specific stand taken by the State that the post is to be filled up through the recommendation of the Odisha Public Service Commission, the post being under Class-II service. 11. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the eligibility to hold the said post and as also the post is to be filled up through Odisha Public Service Commission, has refused to interfere with the relief sought for by the petitioner in the Original Application while rejecting the same. 12. We, after taking into consideration the facts as stated hereinabove and the reasons mentioned in the order impugned, are of the considered view that the Tribunal has not erred in passing the order. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 13. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.