ORDER : Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. 1. The case is called out twice but nobody is present for the petitioner. 2. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondents, has urged that the lis involved in present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of Coordinate Bench dated 13.05.2016, rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 884/2013 (Mardan Ali Vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.). 3. Precisely, in the instant writ petition, petitioner has sought direction against respondents to fill-up the posts of Assistant Law Officer as per Regulation 18 of the RSEB Officers' Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Regulations, 1974 (for short, 'Regulations of 1974') and a direction is further sought for allowing him benefits of the pay scale of Legal Assistant from 2011 in adherence of doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'. 4. The facts, in brief, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk with respondents on 14.11.1994 and by efflux of time, was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 10.03.2017. While in service, petitioner prosecuted higher studies and acquired qualification of Bachelor of Laws and also obtained Diploma in Labour Law, Labour Welfare and Personnel Management. It so happened that in the year 2003, an office order was passed making necessary amendments in the Regulations of 1974 and the mode of recruitment under Regulation 18 for the post of Assistant Law Officer was altered stipulating that the said post shall be filled in 100% by internal direct recruitment, besides prescribing requisite qualifications. After acquiring the qualifications as aforesaid, according to the version of the petitioner in the month of June 2011, he was asked to work in Legal Cell of the respondent department as Legal Assistant but no formal order conferring the status of Legal Assistant is placed on record. For substantiating this assertion, petitioner has placed on record Joining Report (Annex. 7). It is also averred in the petition that after joining as Legal Assistant, he started discharging his duties in the Legal Cell and on many occasions he has discharged the duties of higher office. Boosting his performance as Legal Assistant, petitioner has also pleaded that despite his eligibility and experience, neither he has been given the status of Legal Assistant nor allowed pay scale of the said post. Boosting his performance as Legal Assistant, petitioner has also pleaded that despite his eligibility and experience, neither he has been given the status of Legal Assistant nor allowed pay scale of the said post. In totality, petitioner has ventilated his grievance against inaction of the respondents in not filling-up the post of Legal Assistant in adherence of Regulation 18 of the Regulations of 1974. 5. On behalf of respondents, reply to the writ petition is submitted. In the return, on behalf of respondents, preliminary objections are also raised. Highlighting the rules governing service conditions of the petitioner, viz., Ministerial Staff Regulations, 1962, respondents pleaded in the preliminary objections that there is no channel of promotion to the post of Legal Assistant from Lower Division Clerk and petitioner was accordingly promoted as Upper Division Clerk in terms of the Regulations. It is also pleaded that simply because petitioner has acquired qualification of Bachelor of Law, he cannot be allowed the relief prayed for. While referring to the post of Assistant Law Officer, it is submitted by the respondents that the same has been abolished by the State Government vide order dated 15th March, 2018. The respondents in the preliminary objections also pleaded that Regulations of 1974 have been repealed and presently new set of rules for recruitment to the post of Assistant Law Officer are in vogue. While joining issue with the petitioner on his prayer for grant of relief of equal pay for equal work, respondents have placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case referred hereinabove, which according to respondents has been affirmed by the Division Bench as well as Apex Court. It is also pleaded in the preliminary objections that during pendency of the writ petition, in adherence of new regulations, an advertisement was issued by the respondents to fill-up the vacancies of Junior Law Officer wherein 7% posts were kept reserved for in-service Nigam employees. It is further pleaded that petitioner applied for the post and participated in selection but was not found suitable and therefore now he cannot be granted relief under the repealed Regulations of 1974. 6. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that as a matter of fact, even as per Regulations of 1974, which were in vogue at the relevant point of time, petitioner was never subjected to any process of selection. 6. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that as a matter of fact, even as per Regulations of 1974, which were in vogue at the relevant point of time, petitioner was never subjected to any process of selection. It is also argued by learned Senior Counsel that subsequently Regulations of 1974 were repealed in toto and new Regulations came into offing in the year 2017. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the claim of petitioner for providing him appointment on the post of Assistant Law Officer is wholly misplaced because the Regulations of 1974 are not in vogue now. Learned Senior Counsel has also argued that after repealing of Regulations of 1974, petitioner has appeared for selection pursuant to the Regulations of 2017 for the post of Junior Law Officer but his that effort proved abortive. While joining issue with the petitioner on the doctrine of equal pay for equal pay, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that as a matter of fact when the duties of Assistant Law Officer were never entrusted to him, the doctrine itself cannot be invoked in abstract sense in the backdrop of facts and circumstance of the instant case. Apart from all these arguments, learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment in Mardan Ali's case, referred to supra, wherein the Coordinate Bench has considered the matter threadbare and negated the contentions. Para 9 of the judgment reads as under: "9. The question to be determined is whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared a legal assistant as claimed in the writ petitioner and be given the same pay? The reliance placed by the petitioner on the correspondence addressing him to be a Legal Assistant, will not confer upon him any such designation as claimed, since there is no such formal order on the record. The Board meeting that was held on 12.07.2003 had decided to convert two posts of section officer into two post of Assistant Law Officer. The method of recruitment of Assistant Law Officers was exclusively by internal recruitment with a necessary qualification as specified in Regulation 18. The Board meeting that was held on 12.07.2003 had decided to convert two posts of section officer into two post of Assistant Law Officer. The method of recruitment of Assistant Law Officers was exclusively by internal recruitment with a necessary qualification as specified in Regulation 18. To fill in this newly created post of Assistant Legal Officer, which were to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment from internal recruitment, it was resolved to treat those person working on the legal side as equivalent to Legal Assistants for consideration to be appointed on the post of Assistant Legal Officer. The resolution was does not override the mode of selection/appointment to the post of Legal Assistant can be read as a one time measure. Since there is nothing on the record to establish that he was ever appointed as Legal Assistant after inviting applications from the open market this Court cannot issue any directions on the basis of the resolution so passed." 7. In view thereof, considering the facts in totality, no case for interference is made out. 8. Consequently, the instant petition fails and same is hereby rejected. 9. The stay petition is also rejected.