JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ. 1. Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment passed by Learned Single Judge on 05.12.2024, in Civil Writ Petition No.1857 of 2024, filed by the present appellants. 2. The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed by the Learned Single Judge, on the ground that mandamus could not be issued to the respondents to promote the Writ Petitioners against the post of Principal (ITI) by relaxing the Recruitment & Promotion Rules. Resultantly Annexures P-13 to P-16, whereby the representations of the petitioners claiming the said promotions, have been rejected was upheld. 3. Learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioners still had one year and ten months’ time to serve as Group Instructors to gain eligibility for promotion to the post of Principal, for which they were claiming as the requirement for promotion was six years of regular service and the petitioners had only been promoted against the said posts of Group Instructor on 23.09.2020. 4. It has been noticed by Learned Single Judge that the petitioners had only four years and two months’ service as Group Instructors and fell short by one year and 10 months. The claim as such for discrimination or relaxation with similarly situated persons while placing reliance on Annexure P-17 was repelled by noticing that the benefit has been given to incumbents who had duration of less than three months to gain the eligibility and therefore, the petitioners could not as such claim the benefit of relaxation as a matter of right. 5. The argument, as such, which is raised by learned counsel for the appellant that they were appointed against the post of Group Instructors in the years 1998 &2006 and they had attained eligibility against the posts of Group Instructor after completion of five years of service, but on account of litigation as such with regard to Recruitment & Promotion Rules, their promotions have been deferred. 6. The Learned Single Judge had also noticed this aspect and held that the prayer for the issuance of direction to promote them against the post of Principal (ITI) by relaxing Recruitment & Promotion Rules and issue of delayed promotion against the post of Group Instructors was not the subject matter of writ petition and therefore, repelled the argument which has now been repeated before this Court. 7. 7. The perusal of the writ petition as such would go on to show that the case of the petitioners was that there was delay as such in their promotion to the post of Group Instructors which were the Feeder Cadre for the post of Principal (ITI) due to which they had been adversely affected. The Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Group Instructors Class-III [Non-Gazetted] in the Department of Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, apparently were only notified on 4th July, 2017 pursuant to an order passed by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 18th May, 2017. 8. Nothing has been mentioned in the writ petition as to whether the petitioners had agitated for their grievance to be promoted to the post of Group Instructors if they were eligible as such, and only after their promotion on 23.09.2020, they had apparently set up a claim by filing the necessary representations which were rejected vide Annexures P-13 to P-17, in February, 2024. 9. It is settled principle of law that right of promotion is not a vested right. As such the petitioners’ right of promotion from the post of Group Instructor would be governed by the Recruitment & Promotion Rules titled as “Himachal Pradesh, Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, Department, Assistant Director/Principal ITI, [Class-I Gazetted], Recruitment & Promotion Rules 2014”, which provide the mandatory period of six years regular service or regular combined service with continuous ad hoc service rendered for any grade as per Rule 11 on the post of Group Instructor. The petitioners cannot as such claim the promotion in derogation of the Rules, having only been promoted on 23.09.2020. 10. It is also settled principle of law that the mandamus can only be issued if there is statutory right or a public duty which the authority is supposed to follow. The Court cannot as such issue mandamus against the statutory provisions and therefore, the learned Single Judge is justified in rejecting the writ petition solely on this account by summarizing the position. 11. The power to relax Rule 18 of 2014 Rules is the power of State Government where it feels necessary and expedient to do so and for reasons to be recorded in writing in consultation with the Public Service Commission. 12. 11. The power to relax Rule 18 of 2014 Rules is the power of State Government where it feels necessary and expedient to do so and for reasons to be recorded in writing in consultation with the Public Service Commission. 12. The State as such in its wisdom held that period of relaxation which was given to employees way back was only of two months and fifteen days and the period of service in the cadre of Group Instructor of present employee was only three years and six months, therefore, it was defended that it was not a fit case for taking up the matter with the Government for promotion to the post of Principal (ITI). 13. It is also mentioned that similar request of Mr. Rattan Lal, Group Instructor, has been rejected by the State Government on 27.01.2024, vide Letter No. EDN(TE)B(2)-15/2021. 14. In such circumstances, the State is justified that earlier relaxation at that point of time was only on account of the fact that the relaxation period was minimal compared to twelve months and fifteen days in contrast which is 1/3rd period of the six years mandatory service which the petitioners are now seeking to get exempted as noticed by Learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, the Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued as has been noticed by the Learned Single Judge.Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine along with pending application(s), if any.