JUDGMENT : A.P. SAHI, J. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the post of Lecturer in Law in A & B Wing Foundational Course Training Institute from the 1st respondent herein, and to quash the G.O.Ms.No.190 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (TRG.I) Department dated 23.02.1980 and G.O.Ms.No.81, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (TRG.I) Department dated 07.02.1996 relating to Adhoc Rules for the post of Lecturer in Law, Civil Service Training Institute-Bhavanisagar and the 1st respondents Letter No.1113/Trg.I/2015-1, dated 04.06.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the 1st respondent to make fresh service rules for the petitioner by treating the petitioner as ‘equal in all aspects’ to the regular cadre of officers working in similar class and category in the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service and also by creating appropriate promotional avenues for the petitioner similar in class and category to the promotional avenues as it exists in Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service or in the alternative to direct the 3rd respondent to absorb the petitioner in the regular cadre of officers in the category of Junior Professor (now Assistant Professor) of Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service as a special case. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the communication by which the respondents informed the petitioner that his request for future promotional avenues cannot be considered keeping in view his nature of appointment and engagement in ‘A’ and ‘B’ Wing Foundational Course Training Institute. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner, as he was under an expectancy of receiving such similar benefits that are extendable to similarly categorized officers, but which is being denied in spite of the fact that the petitioner has been regularized. 3. The contention, therefore, in short is that avenues for promotion should not be denied to the petitioner merely because his source of recruitment was different as compared to the other similarly categorized employees. 4. From the admitted pleadings we find that the engagement of the petitioner was made on the strength of the Adhoc Rules that were meant for the engagement of Lecturers in the ‘A’ and ‘B’ Wing Foundational Course Training Institute. 4. From the admitted pleadings we find that the engagement of the petitioner was made on the strength of the Adhoc Rules that were meant for the engagement of Lecturers in the ‘A’ and ‘B’ Wing Foundational Course Training Institute. The category of the petitioner, therefore, is clearly distinct and the nature of appointment cannot be claimed to be at par with other Lecturers, who have been appointed and are in the teaching profession. 5. The prayer for treating the petitioner to be at par with the teachers, who are functioning in the Tamil Nadu Legal Educational Service, therefore, cannot be accepted keeping in view the nature of the separate engagement of the petitioner and his continuance or otherwise in the institute. 6. The contention is that a representation has been filed before the State Government and the State Government, while continuing with the petitioner, cannot discriminate him as against the other category of Lecturers, who are similarly engaged. Unfortunately, we do not find any such Rules of promotion available in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, no mandamus can be issued so as to compel the respondents to perform a duty which they are otherwise not obliged to perform in Law. 7. Nonetheless, since the petitioner claims that the State Government can create promotional avenues keeping in view the nature of his service, we leave it open to the petitioner to approach the State Government for redressal of his grievances and in the event the petitioner represents the matter before the State Government, it will be open to the State Government to take an appropriate decision accordingly. 8. The writ petition is consigned to record with the above observations. Consequently, W.M.P.No.5027 of 2018 is closed. No costs.