Judgment :- 1. By Ext. P-4 Circular No. 45772/SDI/83/GAD dated 19th January, 1984, the Government directed the Heads of Departments and appointing authorities not to relieve, until further orders, those physically handicapped persons who had been appointed in government service under R.9(a) (i) of the General Rules and who had to their credit one year of total government service (including broken periods) as on 5-1-1984 in one or more categories of posts in the same or different departments. They were also directed to re-appoint, in the existing vacancies or by creating supernumerary posts, subject to the conditions laid down in Para.2 of G. O. (P) No. 25/82/FAD dated 27-1-1982 those physically handicapped persons coining under the category referred to above, if they had already been relieved from service. 2. The appellant-petitioner being a handicapped person who had not bad to his credit one year of total government service (including broken periods) as on 5-1-1984 filed the writ petition contending inter alia that Ext. P4 circular was arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. The writ petition having been dismissed, this appeal has been preferred. 3. Admittedly, the appellant-petitioner's appointment in service was under R.9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (General Rules). The proviso to R.9 (a) (i), Note (3). reads as follows: Provided further that a person appointed under this clause by direct recruitment to a post other than teaching post and a post covered by the proviso to clause (iii) of R.10(b) shall not be allowed to continue in such post for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days". It is therefore patently clear that a person appointed provisionally under R.9(a)(i) of the General Rules would have no right to continue in service beyond the period of 180 days. As a matter of fact, his continuation in service after the expiry of 180 days would be against the provisions of the statutory prohibition in the rule governing his appointment and service. 4. We are not impressed by the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the benefits under Ext. P-4 Circular should be extended also to persons placed in the position of the appellant-petitioner, who did not have to their credit one year of total government service (including the broken periods) as on the crucial date, 5-1-1984. 4. We are not impressed by the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the benefits under Ext. P-4 Circular should be extended also to persons placed in the position of the appellant-petitioner, who did not have to their credit one year of total government service (including the broken periods) as on the crucial date, 5-1-1984. The argument of counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that no date, before which the required service of one year was to be completed, should have been fixed in Ext. P-4 Circular; and as and when any provisional hand placed in the position of the appellant-petitioner completed one year in Government service, his service ought to have been regularised; or he should have been at least allowed to continue in service, as otherwise, according to him, the decision of the Government, communicated in Ext. P-4 Circular, would be vitiated by arbitrariness, unreasonableness and discrimination. 5. We do not find any force in this contention. We have already noticed that in terms of the rule under which the appellant-petitioner was appointed provisionally, he was not entitled to continue in service, as a matter of right, after the expiry of the maximum period allowed by the ruled. 5-1-1984, we are told is the date on which the Council of Ministers took a decision to allow the continuance in service of all handicapped persons in provisional service who had to their credit one year of government service. It has to be borne in mind that these persons happened to be appointed mostly in connection with the observance of 1981 as the International Year of the handicapped persons, and that fact appears to have weighed with the Government in deciding that those who had Jo their credit one year of total service (including broken periods) as on 5-1-1984 were to be allowed to continue in service. Ext. P-3 Circular No. 24956/SDI/82/EAD dated 16th February 1982 discloses this anxiety on the part of the Government. 6. This is a governmental policy involving financial implications and administrative expediency; and the High Court would not be justified in the purported exercise of power under Art.226 of the Constitution in extending the benefits arising out of such a decision to personnel who are expressly or by necessary implications excluded from the class of personnel for whose benefit the decision has been meant. Speaking broadly. Speaking broadly. Courts would be slow in interfering with the policy decisions of the Government. The result, therefore, is that, agreeing with the reasoning of the learned judge in the judgment under appeal, we dismiss this appeal in limine. Dismissed.