JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. Heard Shri G. Jalan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N.Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following relief. “In the premises aforesaid, it is humbly prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to issue Rule, call for records, issue notice calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus be not issued directing the respondents to cancel, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the Order dated 08.01.2018 (Annexure-3) promoting the private respondent in the Office of the Lakhimpur Division (Irrigation), North Lakhimpur and / or why a writ in the nature of Certiorari be not issued setting aside and quashing the Order dated 08.01.2018 (Annexure-3) promoting the private respondent in the Office of the Lakhimpur Division (Irrigation), North Lakhimpur and / or why a writ in the nature of Mandamus be not issued directing the respondent authorities to de novo initiate a process for selection of eligible candidate for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant in the Office of the Lakhimpur Division (Irrigation), North Lakhimpur and upon cause or causes shown and after hearing the parties be pleased to allow the writ petition and /or pass such further order / orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. And During the pendency of the Rule, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 08.01.2018 (Annexure-3) promoting the private respondent in the Office of the Lakhimpur Division (Irrigation), North Lakhimpur and / or pass such further order/ orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” 3. The facts projected, in a nutshell is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Muster Roll Worker in the Irrigation Department, Lakhimpur in the year, 1989. Subsequently, his services were regularised as a Peon vide order dated 22.07.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that similar benefit of regularisation was also given to the respondent no.5. The grievance of the petitioner is however in connection with the promotion granted to the respondent no. 5 as Junior Assistant vide order dated 08.01.2018. It is averred that such promotion is not in accordance with law as the respondent no. 5 does not have the eligibility criteria. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is however in connection with the promotion granted to the respondent no. 5 as Junior Assistant vide order dated 08.01.2018. It is averred that such promotion is not in accordance with law as the respondent no. 5 does not have the eligibility criteria. 4. Shri Jalan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the services of the parties are governed by the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967. It is submitted that the aforesaid Rules have undergone amendments and as per the present requirements for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, an incumbent is required to be a Graduate. It is contended that while the petitioner is a Graduate, the respondent no. 5 is a Matriculate. He accordingly submits that the order of promotion of the respondent no. 5 is liable to be set aside with a further direction to consider the case of the petitioner. He has also informed this Court that though the respondent no. 5 has been served, the said respondent no. 5 has chosen not to appear and contest the writ petition. 5. Per contra, Shri Upadhyay, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department has submitted that the entire facts have not been revealed in the writ petition and a very important aspect regarding the process of regularisation of the services of the petitioner has not been disclosed. He has submitted that the regularisation of the services of the petitioner was in terms of a General Order dated 03.10.2005 whereby certain posts were created only for the purpose of regularising the incumbents which were personal to them. It is submitted that the petitioner is a beneficiary of the said process. 6. In this regard, the learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court the aforesaid communication dated 03.10.2005 along with the enclosures which contain the name of the petitioner also at Sl. No. 4. As regards the allegation against the private respondent no. 5, the learned Standing Counsel submits that though he is not equipped with the instructions, the said respondent is not a part of the order dated 03.10.2005 and the promotion can be presumed to be done in accordance with law. 7. The learned Standing Counsel accordingly submits that the regularisation of the petitioner being personal to the post, his claim for promotion is not maintainable. 8. 7. The learned Standing Counsel accordingly submits that the regularisation of the petitioner being personal to the post, his claim for promotion is not maintainable. 8. Shri Jalan, the learned counsel for the petitioner however fairly submits that this aspect of the matter was not made known to him at the time of presenting the writ petition. He however submits that the other aspect of the matter would still be open for consideration as there is no denial of the fact that the respondent no. 5 does not have the eligibility criteria so far as promotion to the post of Junior Assistant is concerned. 9. After considering the rival contentions, this Court has noticed that the challenge was structured against the promotion of the respondent no.5 with a consequential relief to consider the case of the petitioner and in this regard, a writ of certiorari was prayed for. 10. While it is a matter of fact that the allegation against the respondent no. 5 has not been denied, this Court has taken into consideration that both the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 are more than 56 years of age and as would appear from the pleadings, the respondent no. 5 has either already retired / or is at the verge of retirement. This Court has also noticed that the relief prayed for was in the nature of a writ of certiorari and not a writ of quo warranto. In any event, considering that the respondent no. 5 has already retired from service or may be at the verge of retirement, the interest of justice may not call for interfering with such orders of promotion which was done in January, 2018. 11. In view of the above, no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is closed. 12. The communication dated 03.10.2005 along with the enclosures are made part of the records.