1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1293 OF 1998 Shri.Satish Narayan Gaikwad .. Petitioner V/s Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.N.Bhagwat for the Petitioner. Mr.R.S.Pai with Mr.Parag Khandor i/by M/s.Mulla & Mulla & CBC for the Respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 13th August, 2009. P.C.: 1. By this petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner to one of the post of Junior Electronic Assistant. Petitioner also claims that one post reserved for Scheduled Caste should be kept aside for the petitioner and the petitioner should be appointed in that post. 2. The facts that are material and relevant are that the Respondent – Port Trust issued advertisement on 30th June, 1997 calling applications from the candidates for three existing vacancies of Junior Electronic Assistants as also for preparation of panel for future vacancies. It was indicated that one of the posts was 2 reserved for Scheduled Tribe and one for Scheduled Castes described as backlog Scheduled Caste. Pursuant to this advertisement, petitioner had applied. There was written test held and a list of nine candidates was prepared at the completion of process. The list is as follows:- (i) Smt.Ashwini M.Padhye, (ii) Shri.Ranjit D.Jadhav, (iii) Shri.Hanuman V.Patil, (iv) Shri.Pradeep S.Chougule (Ex-serviceman) (v) Smt.Anita J.Sawant, (vi) Shri.Sandesh W.Rushte (OBC), (vii) Shri.Vijay V. Wattamwar, (viii) Shri.Ravindra V. Gulumkar, (ix) Shri.Satish N.Gaikwade (SC). 3. The name of the petitioner was at Serial No.9 and against his name it was indicated that he is Schedule Caste candidate. It appears that after the advertisement was issued, because of Circular issued by the Central Government pursuant to the Judgment in the case of R.K.Sabharwal & Ors.v/s.State of Punjab & Others - AIR 1995 SC 1371, the Respondent – Port Trust decided not to fill-in any vacancy which was advertised for Scheduled Caste, and therefore the petitioner was not appointed. The present petition was therefore filed seeking an order against the Port Trust directing it to 3 appoint the petitioner. Submission of the petitioner is that once the vacancy is advertised, the employer cannot change his decision and decide not to fill-in the post. 4. What is further pertinent to be noted is that, though, of the persons who were selected, four persons viz.Shri.Ranjit Jadhav, Shri.Pradeep Chougule, Smt.Anita Sawant and Shri.Sandesh Rushte have been appointed, their appointment is not challenged. There is no prayer in the petition seeking an order of setting aside their appointment. 5. It is a settled law that a person who has been selected for appointment does not have any right to seek a writ of mandamus for his appointment in the post. He gets a right of appointment only if the employer decides to fill-in the post. If the employer takes a policy decision not to fill-in the post, then, unless that decision is challenged either as contrary to law or malafide, the selected candidate does not become entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the employer to appoint him in the post for which he is selected. 6. In the present case, the petitioner was shown to have been selected and was placed at serial No.9, and therefore if there were only three vacancies as advertised the petitioner could not have been 4 appointed. The petitioner would have a chance of getting appointed provided the employer had decided to make an appointment of the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste, but the employer changed the decision and took a policy decision not to make appointment of the Scheduled Caste person. At this juncture therefore, unless that policy decision is challenged and the writ is sought from the Court setting aside that policy decision, the petitioner will not get the right of appointment. In the petition there is no challenge to the policy decision of the Port Trust. In our opinion therefore, in the absence of challenge to the policy decision and in the absence of challenge to the appointment made pursuant to that policy decision, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition. Petition therefore fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)