JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Senior Selection Grade and thereafter to Super Selection Grade and further direction upon the respondents to grant benefit of Assured Career Progression as has been granted to other employees including Akhouri Shrawan Prasad. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 18.09.1965 in the Rural Engineering Organization Department and retired from the post of Head Assistant on 31.01.2003. But, during the service tenure of the petitioner, he was granted only two promotions whereas other person, in particular Akhouri Shrawan Prasad was granted four promotions. Further, even though the petitioner became eligible on 09.08.1999 for ACP, he was not granted the benefit of ACP but the other person in particular Akhouri Shrawan Prasad was granted such benefit. 3. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sreenu Garapati, A.C to S.C. (Mines) to the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that even though the petitioner is the employee of State level and belongs to Scheduled Caste whereas said Akhouri Shrawan Prasad, who belongs to Backward Class and was employee of Circle level has been given due promotions and has also been granted the benefit of ACP but the petitioner has been deprived to enjoy the fruits of promotion and ACP, which is totally discriminatory and against the rules of service jurisprudence. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that the petitioner joined the services on 18.09.1965 whereas Mr. Akhouri Shrawan Prasad joined the services on 18.10.1965 on the post of lower division clerk. After joining, the petitioner joined the post of selection grade assistant on 15.12.1973 while the said Mr. Akhouri Shrawan Prasad joined the post of selection grade assistant on 1.11.1980. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted with vehemence that the said Mr. Akhouri Shrawan Prasad had never received more salary than that of the petitioner and even from perusal of acquaintance roll, it is crystal clear that basic salary of the petitioner was fixed @ Rs. 9350/-whereas the basic salary of said Mr.Akhouri Shrawan Prasad was fixed @ Rs. 8125/-. Hence, it is neither a case of discrimination nor non-adherence of any rules/regulations. 6. 9350/-whereas the basic salary of said Mr.Akhouri Shrawan Prasad was fixed @ Rs. 8125/-. Hence, it is neither a case of discrimination nor non-adherence of any rules/regulations. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is with respect to discrimination and the petitioner is more concerned with the fact that one Mr. Akhouri Shrawan Prasad has been granted more promotions and ACP whereas petitioner has been subjected to discrimination. From perusal of the record, it appears that both the persons, petitioner and Mr. Akhouri Shrawan Prasad, joined the services in the year 1965 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2003 and 2004 respectively. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, which has not sufficiently been rebutted, it is clear that the petitioner was granted promotion to Selection Grade Assistant and given the post of Head Assistant before the said Mr. Akhouri Shrawan Prasad and even on the date of retirement, the basic salary of the petitioner was higher than that of said Mr. Akhouri Shrawan Prasad. Hence, no case of discrimination is made out. So far promotion is concerned, it is not a matter of right rather the only right is for consideration. In the case at hand, the petitioner fails to establish the case at any point of time that he has been deprived of such right. For the reasons aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.