JUDGMENT : R.A. SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner, who is a Supervisor Qanoongo in the service of Government of Uttar Pradesh was promoted for a fixed period of 42 days to the post of Naib Tahsildar by District Magistrate, Ballia vide his order dated 4-8-1992. After the tenure of 42 days came to an end, Petitioner has again been promoted by order dated 22-10-1992 for the period upto 31-10-92. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the aforesaid order dated 22-10-92 and for writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to revert him to his original post of Supervisor Qanoongo after 31-10-92. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made two submissions, namely (1) Petitioner is fully qualified and being one of the senior most Supervisor Qanoongos is entitled to be promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar; and (2) In any case till the regular selection is made, Petitioner is entitled to continue to work as Naib Tahsildar. On the basis of above submissions it has been contended by the learned Counsel that it is not open to the Respondents to revert the Petitioner after the expiry of his term. It is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel. 3. Supreme Court in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070 has laid down that if a person is appointed for a fixed period his tenure comes to an end automatically on the expiry of the term and he has no right to continue thereafter, mentioned hereinbefore, both the orders promoting the Petitioner to the post of Naib Tahsildar being for fixed periods, he is not entitled to continue after the expiry of the term. 4. In this connection it may also be mentioned that merely because vacancy in a particular cadre exists, no person can force the State to fill the post on the ground that he is qualified for being appointed to that post. It is for the Government to decide to fill or not to fill any vacancy. Even person who has made an application for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement can not claim to be appointed to the post. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Haryana Vs. It is for the Government to decide to fill or not to fill any vacancy. Even person who has made an application for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement can not claim to be appointed to the post. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others, AIR 1973 SC 2216 , wherein it was laid down as under : One fails to see how the existence of vacancies gives a legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment. The examination is for the purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection for appointment comes latter. It is open then to the Government to decide how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed 5. Same principle was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in Jatinder Kumar and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1984 SC 1850 , by holding that : But it is open to the Government to decide how many appointments will be made. The process for selection and selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post which could be enforced by a mandamus. *** The notification made by the Board in this case was only an invitation to candidates possessing specified qualifications to apply for selection, for recruitment for certain posts. It did not hold out any promise that the selection would be made or if it was made the selected candidates would be appointed. The candidates did not acquire any right merely by applying for selection or for appointment after selection. 6. In the instant case neither the Government has advertised the post nor has the Petitioner applied for the same. Petitioner does not get any right to be appointed to the post on the ground that there is vacancy and he is fully qualified for the appointment. 7. The second submission also lacks merit. For the reasons given hereinabove Petitioner cannot claim the right to work as Naib Tahsildar merely on the ground that there is some vacancy and he is qualified for appointment. 7. The second submission also lacks merit. For the reasons given hereinabove Petitioner cannot claim the right to work as Naib Tahsildar merely on the ground that there is some vacancy and he is qualified for appointment. That apart, one cannot hold a post and does not get a right to work on a particular post unless he has been appointed by the appropriate authority to that post. Petitioner's appointment is only upto 31-10-92. This Court as such cannot pass any order directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to work as Naib Tahsildar in the absence of any order of his appointment to that post. 8. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.