JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A. S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. C. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 5. No representation for the other respondents despite due notice from the Court. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged that the promotion as made in favour of the respondents No. 4 and 7 to the post of Associate Professor in the U.R. category requires in law to be quashed and the respondents be commanded to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor w.e.f. 11.12.2011 when those private respondents No. 4 to 7 were appointed in the said post. 3. The facts which are not in dispute is that the petitioner had been working as the Assistant Professor in the Department of Pediatrics and the petitioner has already retired from the service immediately after filing of the writ petition. 4 It is also not in dispute that the private respondents No. 4 to 7 have been appointed on promotion as the Associate Professor respectively in the Department of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, Department of Medicine and Department of Gynecology in Agartala Government Medical College. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed substantively as the Assistant Professor in the Department of Pediatrics. 5. Therefore, the pertinent question that arises whether the petitioner has got any locus-standi to challenge the appointment of the respondents No. 4-7 as the Associate Professor in the departments where the petitioner cannot even be considered for promotion. 6. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly acceded that on that account the petitioner might not have any case but the petitioner was admittedly given the charge of the Unite-II of the Pediatrics Department and according to the MCI guidelines in any Medical Colleges the unit of any department can only be headed by an Associate Professor, not by a person below the said rank. 7. However, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has admitted that no post of Associate Professor was created in the Pediatrics Department for that purpose. 7. However, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has admitted that no post of Associate Professor was created in the Pediatrics Department for that purpose. He has, however, further submitted that the State respondents ought to have created the post for that purpose and by not creating such post following the MCI guidelines the State-respondents have acted arbitrarily and thus, infringed the right of the petitioner inasmuch as the writ petitioner would have been considered against the post of Associate Professor, if created in the department of Pediatrics. 8. Ms. A. S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. and Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. C. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have in unison submitted that this writ petition is bereft of merit and frivolous in nature. No right can emerge against a particular post, unless the said post exists. The primary requisite for claim over a post is its existence. In this case no such post is available in the Pediatrics Department against which the petitioner’s case would have been considered. In view of this, this writ petition according to this Court is devoid of merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. However in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.