THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.66 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is an employee of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. He completed the probation in the post of Accounts Officer, by 01.02.1994. The post of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer has fallen vacant and it was earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidate. The petitioner belongs to that category. He contends that though the post was vacant and he is eligible to be promoted, the respondents have not considering his case and denied him the benefit of reservation and promotion, provided for under Section 16 of the Constitution of India. He was ultimately promoted on 11.07.2000. He claims the relief in the form of a declaration that the action of the respondents in not allowing notional benefits to the petitioner in the post of Deputy C.E.O., for a period of five years, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and to direct them to grant notional benefits, by treating that he was promoted in the year 1996. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. It may be true that the petitioner became eligible to be promoted as Deputy C.E.O., and there existed vacancy; and the rule of reservation in promotions also prevailed in the organization. Notwithstanding these facts, it is ultimately for the respondents to take a decision, whether or not, to fill a post. If there was any lapse on the part of the respondents in filling the post, the petitioner could certainly have moved the appropriate forum, and on the other hand, if any junior to him was promoted, superseding his seniority, he can challenge such appointment. The fact remains that he was promoted in the year 2000. The question of giving any notional promotion, or for that matter, extending the monetary benefits for that notional period, does not arise. It is only when a person is superseded in the matter of promotion, and such supercession is found to be illegal, that the feasibility of directing notional promotion with effect from the date on which his junior was promoted, would arise. Such is not a case here. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.12.11.2010. GJ