Having been selected by the Public Service Commission, the respondent herein was appointed as Law Officer-cum-Draftsman in the Directorate of Cooperation. There was only one post in the same Cadre and it had no promotional avenues. He filed a representation that his post be upgraded or two promotional avenues be provided to him. Several representations made by him having not received consideration at the hands of the appellants, the respondent herein filed a writ petition seeking for a specific direction upon the appellant herein to provide at least two promotional avenues. The said contention of the respondent was accepted by the High Court and by reason of its impugned judgment the appellant was directed to provide 'the graded scale' to the appellant by providing three grades, the initial being Grade III which is the Post of Law Officer cum Draftsman and thereafter Grade II and Grade I. Officer of Judicial Service. It was further directed: "The scale of pay of Grade II Law officer-cum- Draftsman shall be same as Grade-II officer of the Judicial Service. The scale of pay of Grade-I Law Officer-cum-Draftsman shall be equal to the scale of pay of Grade-I officer of Judicial Service." Questioning the said direction, the appellants are before us. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court went wrong in issuing the aforementioned direction. The learned counsel would urge that the respondent herein did not have any legal right to be promoted to a higher post far less the right to get the scale of pay of Grade I officer of the Judicial Service. Such a direction by the High Court, the learned counsel would contend, is wholly without jurisdiction. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, has supported the said order.