JUDGMENT - SHAH M.B., C.J.:---According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Sea-boy in 1956. On 9th October, 1963 he was promoted as a Sub-Lieutenant. On 1st July, 1991 the petitioner was promoted as Captain. In July, 1991 the petitioner was promoted as Rear-Admiral. The post of Rear-Admiral is a tenure post of four years or upto the age of 56 years, whichever is earlier. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Vice-Admiral in the year 1994 and that his case is not considered arbitrarily and capriciously by the Promotion Board No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Promotion Board') in the year 1994. He has further submitted that the entire procedure for selection of officers for promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral followed by the respondents is arbitrary as there are no guidelines to the Promotion Board prescribed any fixed dated to consider the cases of eligible candidates and as to how many candidates should be considered at a given time. 3. Hence by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for: (i) a declaration that the selection procedure under Clause 8(a) of the Navy Order (Special) 2/86 is unjust, illegal and ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to convene a meeting of the Promotion Board No. 1 forthwith to consider him for promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral along with three other officers who were considered in August 1994; (iii) a declaration that the order of retirement dated 3rd May, 1995 served upon him is illegal, unjust and ultra vires; (iv) a direction to the respondents to withdraw the order of retirement dated 3rd May, 1995 served upon him; and (v) a declaration that the petitioner has a right to continue in service at least upto the age of 57 years. 4. At the time of hearing of this matter on the question of admission, by an order dated 27th July, 1995 a Division Bench of this Court directed that this matter be peremptorily fixed for final hearing on 3rd August, 1995. It was prayed by the petitioner that interim relief should be granted as he was to retire on 31st July, 1995. It was prayed by the petitioner that interim relief should be granted as he was to retire on 31st July, 1995. The Court refused to grant interim relief by observing that depending upon the final outcome of the petition the petitioner can be recalled in service. We have heard the parties extensively on the basis that on 27th July, 1995 this Court has directed that the matter be placed for final hearing even though it was not admitted and no Rule was issued. 5. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that: (a) Clause 8 of the Navy Order (Special) 2/86 is an arbitrary one as it gives untrammelled powers to the Promotion Board without any guidelines in the matter of promotion of officers to the rank of Commander and above; (b) no guidelines have been framed by the Promotion Board even by administrative orders and in working the said procedure it is acting arbitrarily; (c) no time limit is prescribed for convening the meeting of the Promotion Board; no fixed period is prescribed for considering the anticipated vacancies arising on the higher post; no zones for consideration of candidates is prescribed; no eligibility criteria is fixed and the batches of candidates who were promoted on the lower cadre to the post of Rear-Admiral are considered for promotion to the post of Vice-Admiral. Even with regard to these batches the respondents are not taking into consideration the entire batch. The criteria of consideration of Select List of Captains to be promoted to the post of Rear-Admiral for the purpose of preparing Select List of Rear-Admirals to be promoted to the post of Vice-Admiral is wholly irrelevant, irrational, and has no nexus to the object of selecting appropriate candidates to the post of Vice-Admiral; (d) the Select List of Captains to be promoted to the post of Rear-Admiral does not disclose any intelligent classification having nexus to the object sought to be achieved for giving promotion to the post of Vice-Admiral; and that (e) the Select List of Captains gets exhausted as soon as they are promoted to the post of Rear-Admiral; the said Select List does not give any vested right for being promoted to the post of Rear-Admiral and, in any case, of being considered first for promotion to the post of Vice-Admiral. 6. As against this, Mr. 6. As against this, Mr. R.A. Dada, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, vehemently submitted that the whole petition is misconceived; that Clause 8(a) of the Navy Order (Special) 2/86, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Navy Order') read with Clauses 9, 12, 16, 18, 20 and 22 thereof, prescribes exhaustive guidelines in the matter of preparing Select List of candidates in various cadres, including preparation of Select List for the post of Vice-Admiral. He submitted that preparation of Select List of officers for being promoted to the post of Rear-Admirals has reasonable nexus to the selection for the post of Vice-Admiral because according to the procedure prescribed under the Navy Order, the Select List is to be prepared on the basis of anticipated vacancies and the officers who are required to be promoted to the post. He further submitted that the matter with regard to preparation of Select List and the procedure which is required to be followed by the Promotion Board is a policy matter to be decided by the Government and unless such policy decision is wholly arbitrary and capricious the same is not justifiable and the Court would not interfere therewith under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. With regard to the facts of the present case, the learned Additional Solicitor General has pointed out that when the Promotion Board convened its meeting there were three anticipated vacancies in August 1994. The said three vacancies were to arise as under--- (a) One vacancy on the retirement of Vice-Admiral Raju on 31st December, 1994; (b) The second vacancy on the retirement of Vice-Admiral Suri on 5th January, 1995; and (c) The third vacancy on the retirement of Vice-Admiral B. Guha on 31st May, 1995. In view of the aforesaid three anticipated vacancies, the Promotion Board considered six officers, namely: (1) Rear-Admiral Malhotra, (2) Rear-Admiral Das, (3) Rear-Admiral Vora, who were admittedly promoted prior to the promotion of the petitioner as they were promoted in 1987, 1988 and 1989. (4) Rear-Admiral Jacob (respondent No. 4). (5) Rear-Admiral Pasricha (respondent No. 5), (6) Rear-Admiral Ganesh (respondent No. 6). These three respondents belonged to the batch of Select List prepared in the year 1989 for being promoted to the post of Rear-Admiral. He, therefore, pointed out that the respondents who were considered for being promoted to the post of Vice-Admiral were admittedly seniors to the petitioner. 8. (5) Rear-Admiral Pasricha (respondent No. 5), (6) Rear-Admiral Ganesh (respondent No. 6). These three respondents belonged to the batch of Select List prepared in the year 1989 for being promoted to the post of Rear-Admiral. He, therefore, pointed out that the respondents who were considered for being promoted to the post of Vice-Admiral were admittedly seniors to the petitioner. 8. In the affidavit in reply it is pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner belonged to the Select List of Captains to be appointed to the post of Rear-Admiral of the batch of April 1991 while the last officer considered and cleared by the Promotion Board is from the October 1989 batch. Therefore, there is no discrimination or arbitrary action on the part of the respondents as the petitioner belonged to the Select List of 1991. In the affidavit in reply it is also pointed out that the number of officers to be considered for promotion depend on the number of vacancies in the higher rank. 9. However, with regard to one statement in the affidavit in reply, the learned Additional Solicitor General clarified that there is a mistake in stating the year, in that, instead of stating 'August 1994 to July 1995' it has been wrongly mentioned that the Promotion Board took into consideration the anticipated vacancies "In the year August 1994 to July 1996." With regard to this statement the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that it is not a mistake but reveals total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents as there are no guidelines prescribed even by administrative orders. In our view, this controversy is not of much importance because admittedly the Promotion Board convened its meeting in August 1994 for preparing the Select List of officers to be appointed to the post of Vice-Admiral for the period from August 1994 to July 1995. 10. In the affidavit in reply it is also pointed out that the Promotion Board has taken into consideration the Select List batch-wise rather than seniority in the rank for being appointed to the post of Vice-Admiral. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the said procedure cannot be said to be in any way arbitrary because it also takes into consideration the seniority of the officer concerned. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the said procedure cannot be said to be in any way arbitrary because it also takes into consideration the seniority of the officer concerned. He contended that once an officer is on the Select List he is required to be absorbed and that absorption would be on the basis of seniority determined as per gradation in the Select List. 11. Keeping in mind, therefore, the aforesaid rival contentions, the question that arises for our consideration is whether the procedure prescribed for preparing the Select List of officers for promotion is in any way arbitrary or capricious. For this purpose we would refer to the relevant Clauses of the Navy Order. As we are concerned with the promotion to the post of Vice-Admiral, only those Clauses which deal with the promotion to the said post are taken into consideration. Clause 3 provides that selection of officers for promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral and Rear-Admiral is to be made by the Promotion Board No. 1. Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19 and 20 of the Navy Order read as under:--- "8. Number of Officers to be considered for promotion: (a) Selection to the rank of Vice-Admiral. The number of officers to be considered for promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral will be based on the number of vacancies available in the higher rank. (b) Selection to the rank of Rear-Admiral and below. For promotion to the rank of Rear-Admiral and below, officers are divided into half-yearly batches depending on their seniority i.e. officers of 1 January to 30 June seniority forming one batch and of 1 July to 31 December seniority forming the other. The number of half-yearly batches to be considered on a particular occasion is decided on the basis of the long and short term requirements of the service. 9. Number of Times to be considered. An officer is considered for promotion three times in each rank. 10. Gradings. The Promotion Board grades the officers into the following categories: 'A' Head and shoulders above his contemporaries; 'B' Selected for promotion in his turn; 'D' Deferred for consideration without loss of seniority. This is not treated as a look in terms of paragraph 9 above; 'R' Not yet select for promotion; 'U' Unfit for promotion, having been considered three times and not selected. 12. This is not treated as a look in terms of paragraph 9 above; 'R' Not yet select for promotion; 'U' Unfit for promotion, having been considered three times and not selected. 12. Owing to the limited number of vacancies available for promotion the Promotion Board select officers on the basis of comparative merit. The totality of performance afloat and ashore, particularly in command or as a Head of Department is considered by the Board in arriving at a decision. Weightage to be given to various factors and attributes of an officer is determined after detailed deliberations. 16. Promotion Boards Nos. 1 and 2. On approval by the Government a copy of the select list of officers approved for promotion is forwarded to FOsC -in-C and the concerned PSOs. The officers considered are informed individually of their gradings. 18. The Select List consists of officers who are considered fit for promotion to the next higher rank and is operative till all the officers on the list are confirmed in the rank. 19. The inter-seniority of officers in the Select List is the same as in their present substantive rank except for the following: (a) An officer graded 'A' moves to the top of his batch in the Select List. (b) An officer graded 'R' and thereafter graded 'B' is placed in the Select List immediately below all those graded 'B' earlier. (c) An officer graded 'D' if graded 'B' in the subsequent look, is placed in the Select List in the order of his batch seniority. His confirmation, however, cannot be ante-dated. (d) An officer once placed on the Select List will not be removed from the Select List except as explained hereunder. If during the period intervening between the date of the officer's selection and his turn for promotion his performance deteriorates or he is awarded a censure of punishment under the Navy Act, his case will be placed before the CNS/Promotion Board (if one is due to be convened) to determine whether or not he should continue on the Select List. In such cases, the special review will not be considered as a 'look'. In case he is removed from the Select List he will continue to be eligible for subsequent look(s), if he has not already exhausted all the three chances." "20. Acting Promotions. In such cases, the special review will not be considered as a 'look'. In case he is removed from the Select List he will continue to be eligible for subsequent look(s), if he has not already exhausted all the three chances." "20. Acting Promotions. Appointments in higher acting ranks are normally made in the order of seniority in the approved Select List. However, this may not be possible at times, due to administrative reasons. An officer whose acting promotion has been so delayed, maintains his original seniority in the Select List for the purpose of confirmation." (Emphasis added) 12. It is apparent from sub-clause (a) of Clause 8 quoted above that the number of officers to be considered for promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral is to be based on the number of vacancies available in the higher rank. This clause is to be read along with Clause 18, which specifically provides that the Select List consists of officers who are considered fir for promotion to the next higher rank and is operative till all the officers on the list are confirmed in the rank. This would indicate that officers who are to be placed on the Select List are required to be given posting on the higher post. This is also in accordance with the Regulations for General Service Officers' Promotion and Ages of Compulsory Retirement framed under the Regulations For the Navy, Part III, Statutory. According to Regulation 151(1), recommendations for promotions to substantive Commander and above shall be submitted to the Government for their approval and the necessary orders for promotion shall be conveyed by the Chief of the Naval Staff. Regulation 151(3) provides that substantive promotions to the rank of Commander and above shall be made by selection and shall be limited to the number of vacancies in the authorised cadre. So, according to this Regulation, Selection List is to be prepared of limited number of officers on the basis of the vacancies in the authorised cadre. Therefore, Select List of more officers cannot be prepared and officers put on the Select List are required to be appointed to the higher post. 13. It is the case of the respondents that the Promotion Board had anticipated three vacancies for the period from August 1994 to July 1995 and on that basis they have considered the six names referred to above. 13. It is the case of the respondents that the Promotion Board had anticipated three vacancies for the period from August 1994 to July 1995 and on that basis they have considered the six names referred to above. Admittedly all of them are seniors to the petitioner. May be that consideration is based upon batches of Select List of Captains prepared for being appointed to the post of Rear-Admiral. However, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the zone of consideration which is determined by the Promotion Board is arbitrary and capricious because it is not based upon seniority in the post of Rear-Admiral, but the consideration is solely based on the batches of the Select List of officers who are to be promoted to the post of Rear-Admiral. 14. In our view, the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General requires to be accepted. It is apparent, in the present case that officers are considered for promotion to the post of Vice-Admiral solely on the basis of seniority because the Select List of the batches itself reflect the seniority. Firstly, as per Clause 8(b), officers are divided into half-yearly batches depending on their seniority. Thereafter grading is given as per Clause 10 and the seniority in the Select List is determined on the basis of grading as per procedure prescribed under Clause 19. Sub-clause (b) of Clause 8, specifically provides that for promotion to the rank of Rear-Admiral and below, officers are divided into half-yearly batches depending on their seniority i.e. officers of 1st January to 30th June seniority forming one batch and officers of 1st July to 31st December seniority forming the other. Further, considering Clause 8 along with Clause 9 of the Navy Order, it is apparent that the Promotion Board is required to prepare a Select List of officers on the basis of comparative merit. They are also required to give gradation as provided in Clause 10. Therefore, an officer who is senior in the Select List on the basis of gradation would be required to be appointed first on the higher post and, therefore, he would automatically be senior to the officer who is appointed subsequently. 15. For determining the inter se seniority of the officers in the Select List, which is to be based on the grading given as per Clause 10, exhaustive procedure is prescribed in Clause 19. 15. For determining the inter se seniority of the officers in the Select List, which is to be based on the grading given as per Clause 10, exhaustive procedure is prescribed in Clause 19. Clause 22 provides that substantive promotion in the flag rank is to be made from the date of stablised vacancy becoming available or the date of picking up the higher appointment, whichever is later. Considering the aforesaid clauses, it cannot be said that the Promotion Board has unguided or untrammelled power of preparing the Select List. There are sufficient guidelines laid down in the aforesaid clauses governing the preparation of the Select List. Further, Clause 9 specifically provides that an officer is required to be considered for promotion three times in each rank. This would mean that if an officer is not considered fit for being promoted in one year, he is required to be considered on the second and third occasion depending upon the vacancy arising on the higher post. Therefore, if an officer of the Select List of say 1987, is not found to be fit for promotion in 1989 or 1990, then he is required to be again considered on two more occasions. In the present case, on the basis of the said clause the Promotion Board considered the names of Rear-Admiral Malhotra, Das and Vora in 1994 because they were found unfit for promotion in the previous years. As there were three vacancies during the relevant period they considered three other names i.e. of respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Therefore, for three anticipated vacancies the Promotion Board considered six names. It cannot be said that as the petitioner was next to respondent No. 6 the Promotion Board ought to have considered him along with respondents Nos. 4 to 6. Admittedly, he was first selected in the Select List of the year 1991. Thereafter in the same year he was appointed. But as against that, respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were on the Select List of the previous years and they were seniors to him. 4 to 6. Admittedly, he was first selected in the Select List of the year 1991. Thereafter in the same year he was appointed. But as against that, respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were on the Select List of the previous years and they were seniors to him. This would mean that an officer who was on the Select List in 1989 would not only be automatically senior to the officer who was in the Select List of 1991 but at the same time it would mean that the said officer was considered fit for promotion prior in time to the officer who was considered fit for being promoted in the year 1991. Therefore, it cannot be said that eligibility criteria for the preparing the Select List is in any way arbitrary or that zone of consideration on the basis of the batches of Select List is in any way arbitrary. 16. At this stage, we would incorporate how the Promotion Board has taken into consideration the Select List of the year 1989 and 1991. The Select List of Captains of the years 1989 and 1991 for being promoted to the post of Rear-Admiral are as under :--- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Name Date of Date Date promoted Sub-Rank No. Birth Sub. Capt. to Ag RA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SELECT LIST- 1989 1. P.J. Jacob 23-2-1941 1-7-1983 7-8-1990 1-12-1990 (R 4) 2. V. Pasricha 17-12-1942 1-1-1984 12-1-1991 12-1-1991 (R 5) 3. R.N. Ganesh 6-2-1942 1-1-1984 12-1-1991 3-4-1991 (R 6) SELECT LIST- 1991 1. P.P. Nandi Died 2. G. Rai 1-8-1940 1-7-1984 8-7-1991 8-7-1991 (Petitioner) 3. S.S. Khanna Retired prematurely 4. Harinder Singh 15-9-1942 1-7-1984 29-5-1992 29-5-1992 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The learned Additional Solicitor General has also produced for our inspection the minutes of the meeting of the Promotion Board held on 22nd and 23rd August 1994 which narrate the vacancies which were taken into consideration by the Promotion Board and the seniority of consideration and other aspects. However, the said minutes were not produced on record and hence we are not referring to the same. Admittedly, the Promotion Board has not taken into consideration the Select List of 1991 for preparing the Select List of officers for being promoted to the post of Vice-Admiral. Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were on the Select List of the previous years. 17. Admittedly, the Promotion Board has not taken into consideration the Select List of 1991 for preparing the Select List of officers for being promoted to the post of Vice-Admiral. Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were on the Select List of the previous years. 17. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have not taken into consideration two posts which are likely to be vacant on the retirement of Vice-Admiral Bedi and Admiral Shekhawat. It is submitted that Vice-Admiral Bedi is to retire on 30th April, 1996 and admiral Shekhawat is to retire on 30th September, 1996 and, therefore, the petitioner's case ought to have been considered by the Promotion Board. As against this, it has been pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the vacancy created on the retirement of Vice-Admiral Bedi would be utilised for promotion of a Technical Rear-Admiral as CWP A (Controller of Warships, Purchase and Acquisition) and since it is a stroke vacancy between executive and technical officers, this vacancy is rotated between the technical and executive officers subject, of course, to the exigencies and requirements of the service. It is also pointed out that no technical officer has been appointed as CWP A in the year 1993-94 nor it was possible to do so in the year 1995 and, therefore, this vacancy would not be available for promotion of an executive as contended by the petitioner. In view of the above position it is difficult for us to determine whether the vacancy which is likely to arise because of the retirement of Vice-Admiral Bedi would go to an executive Rear-Admiral or a technical Rear-Admiral but at present as it is pointed out that it is likely to go to a technical Rear-Admiral, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents is arbitrary or capricious one. Furthermore, whether the post is to be given to a technical officer or to an Executive Officer is a question of policy which is required to be determined by the competent authority and as such it would not be justiciable by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and that too, to see that the petitioner's case is considered on so called future vacancies which may arise because of retirement of some officer. 18. 18. Similarly, with regard to the vacancy which is likely to arise because of the retirement of Admiral Shekhawat on 30th September 1996, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted because the petitioner would have retired on 31st July, 1996 even if extension of one year was given to him. Therefore, in our view, it cannot be said that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in not taking into consideration the vacancy which is likely to arise because of the retirement of Admiral Shekhawat on 30th September, 1996. Further, in view of what is stated above, it is for the department to decide whether the said post would go to a technical Rear-Admiral or an executive Rear-Admiral. Therefore, the submission that the post which is likely to fall vacant from 30th September, 1996 should have been taken into consideration by convening a special meeting of the Promotion Board in October 1994 is, in our view, unreasonable. 19. In the present case, it is pointed out by the petitioner himself that he made a representation dated 1st September 1994 (Exhibit 'B') to the Flag Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, wherein he has stated that he would retire on 31st July 1995 and that he was fully eligible for being promoted to the post of Vice-Admiral. He has further stated that the Promotion Board generally meets in October every year and may be meeting in that year also and, therefore, his case may be considered by the Promotion Board for promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral along with those Flag Officers whose date of promotion to the rank of Rear-Admiral is 1991. To that representation, by a letter dated 6th October 1994 (Exhibit 'C') it was point out that in accordance with the Navy Order, the number of officers to be considered for promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral are based on the number of vacancies in the higher rank and that the Promotion Board which met in August 1994 considered Rear-Admirals of Select List 1989 to fill vacancies of Vice-Admirals falling vacant in the next one year. It was specifically stated that Rear-Admirals of Select List 1991 were not considered for promotion. It was also stated that no injustice was done to the petitioner because on number of occasions some officer may retire without being considered for promotion because the number of vacancies in the rank of Vice-Admiral was limited. 20. It was specifically stated that Rear-Admirals of Select List 1991 were not considered for promotion. It was also stated that no injustice was done to the petitioner because on number of occasions some officer may retire without being considered for promotion because the number of vacancies in the rank of Vice-Admiral was limited. 20. By his letter dated 20th December 1994 (Exhibit 'D') the petitioner made another representation wherein he has requested that a meeting of the Promotion Board may be convened so that he is afforded an opportunity for being looked at by the Board as the next vacancy is likely to be available in November 1995/April 1996. He also submitted that if he was found suitable for promotion, then under the present norms he will become eligible for extension of service till the date of filling up of the vacancy. This representation was replied to by letter dated 13th January 1995 wherein it was specifically pointed out that the number of officers to be considered for promotion to the rank of Vice-Admiral are based on the number of vacancies in the higher rank. The Promotion Board which met in August 1994 had cleared three Flag Officers for promotion to the rank of Vice Admiral and that their placements will be completed only by the end of the year 1995. It was also pointed out that no further vacancy of Vice-Admiral was envisaged during the current year and therefore, it is infructuous, under the circumstances, to convene a meeting of the Promotion Board as requested by the petitioner. 21. In our view, the stand taken by the department as on 13th January 1995 that as there were no vacancies envisaged for the current year and, therefore, it would be infructuous to convene a meeting of the Promotion Board as requested by the petitioner was wholly justified. It is apparent that the Promotion Board did not meet because there were no vacancies anticipated. If the petitioner's request was acceded to, it would have been said that even though there was no post available, only to favour the petitioner a special meeting was convened to consider his case so that he may not retire. It is apparent that the Promotion Board did not meet because there were no vacancies anticipated. If the petitioner's request was acceded to, it would have been said that even though there was no post available, only to favour the petitioner a special meeting was convened to consider his case so that he may not retire. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that in some cases where the department considered proper they may exercise this power of convening the meeting of the Promotion Board as there are no specific guidelines fixing the date on which the Promotion Board meeting is to be convened. Therefore, the said procedure gives arbitrary power to the respondents of selecting a date for convening a meeting of the Promotion Board. 22. In our view, this contention cannot be accepted. As discussed above, the meeting of the Promotion Board is required to be convened if there are anticipated vacancies during the year. On some occasions meetings were called in the month of August or October. However, convening of the meeting of the Promotion Board would always depend upon administrative exigencies. Further, from the representation made by the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner thought that the respondents should convene a meeting of the Promotion Board for considering his case for promotion so that if selected he can be kept on the Select List and thereby his tenure in service can be extended for a period of one year. As such, in our view, no such plea can be accepted that for giving extension of the term of one year to the petitioner a special meeting of the Promotion Board is required to be convened even though there is no vacancy. It is also to be noted that in the present case the vacancy for the post of Vice-Admiral is not likely to arise till the end of November 1995. 23. In the affidavit in reply it has been pointed out that the Promotion Board of October 1993 had cleared Rear-Admiral M. Singh for promotion to Vice-Admiral based on vacancy to be created as Commandant, National Defence College. However, the clearance of this vacancy was delayed by Government's decision to 31st October 1995. This decision of the Government was not anticipated in October 1993 when the Promotion Board meeting was convened. However, the clearance of this vacancy was delayed by Government's decision to 31st October 1995. This decision of the Government was not anticipated in October 1993 when the Promotion Board meeting was convened. It is also pointed out that on the retirement of Vice-Admiral S.K. Chand on 30th November, 1995, Rear-Admiral R.N. Ganesh (respondent No. 6) is to be posted on the said vacancy. From that it is clear that even respondent No. 6 who is already on select listed and is senior to the petitioner, would get posting only on 30th of November 1995. Therefore, till November 1995 when no vacancy was anticipated, it would be totally unreasonable to ask the respondents to convene a meeting of the Promotion Board for considering the case of the petitioner for keeping him on the Select List so that he can get extension for a period of one year. 24. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of (Vinod Kumar Sangal v. Union of India)1, 1995(4) S.C.C. 246 . In our view, this judgment is hardly of any assistance to the petitioner because the mode of selection adopted by the Department Promotion Committee in that case was in disregard of the instructions contained in the office memorandum dated 24th December, 1980 and it operated to the prejudice of the appellant therein because instead of making selection for the vacancies of each year from 1970 to 1985 separately, it bunched together and made selection for all those vacancies which resulted in enlarging the field of choice and thereby restricted the chances of the appellant for being selected. In the present case, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the respondents acted de hors the procedure prescribed for preparing the Select List. The procedure itself prescribes that Select List is to be prepared from the selection list of the lower cadre. As discussed above, that Select List has an in-built criteria of seniority because according to the procedure of preparing Select List, grading is given as provided in Clause 10 and after giving grading the Select List is prepared on the basis of seniority. On the basis of the Select List posting is to be given as per the seniority. As discussed above, that Select List has an in-built criteria of seniority because according to the procedure of preparing Select List, grading is given as provided in Clause 10 and after giving grading the Select List is prepared on the basis of seniority. On the basis of the Select List posting is to be given as per the seniority. Therefore, there is an in-built concept of observing the seniority and giving appointment on the basis of seniority. On the contrary, the said procedure provides that once an officer is on the Select List for being appointed to the higher post, that Select List is to be taken into consideration for preparing the Select List for the next higher post even though an officer may be appointed subsequently. In the present case, officers who were selected in the year 1989 got appointment to the higher post in the years 1990 and 1991 . Above all, this procedure would give preference of being considered first for being promoted to the higher post because they were selected for being promoted earlier in point of time. 25. We may note that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited some other judgments in support of his contentions. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, it is not necessary to discuss the other judgments cited at the Bar because the respondents have prepared the Select List according to the prescribed procedure and in such a manner that those officers who are on the Select List get appointment and posting. 26. Further, as contended by the respondents, the procedure of preparing the Select List on the basis of batches of the lower post is consistently followed all throughout by the department and, therefore, this Court may not interfere. We may note that with regard to policy matter it is well settled that the wisdom in a policy decision of the Government is not justiciable unless such policy decision is wholly capricious, arbitrary and whimsical thereby offending the Rule of Law as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and that the Court need not embark on unchartered ocean of public policy. See (State of Rajasthan v. Sevanivatra Karmachari Hitkari Samiti)2, J.T. 1995(1) S.C. 315. 27. See (State of Rajasthan v. Sevanivatra Karmachari Hitkari Samiti)2, J.T. 1995(1) S.C. 315. 27. From the aforesaid discussion, in our view, it cannot be said that under Clause 8 of the Navy Order, the Promotion Board is having arbitrary powers in the matter of promotion of officers to the rank of Commander and above. The Promotion Board is required to convene its meeting on the basis of anticipated vacancies arising in the next year for higher posts. Normally Further, meetings are held once in a year. As stated by the petitioner in his letter dated 1st September, 1994 (Exhibit 'B') it is held in the month of October every year. Further, the zone of consideration of candidates is the batches of Select List. It is true that the said Select List is of the lower posts from which the officers are promoted, but at the same time the said Select List fully reflects the seniority of the concerned officers. It has an admitted advantage of giving preference to the officers found fit for promotion to the post which they are holding at earlier point of time qua the officers who are brought on subsequent Select List for promotion. Its effect is that the officer who is selected in the previous year would have an advantage of being considered first for promotion to the higher post than the officer who is selected for promotion in the next year. This procedure cannot be said to be in any way arbitrary or without any object sought to be achieved for giving promotion to the higher post of Vice-Admiral. Further, according to the Navy Order, the officer who is on the Select List is required to be posted and appointed to the post and till the appointment is given to the selected officer there is no question of preparing ought to have convened the meeting of the Promotion Board for considering his case for being promoted to the post of Vice-Admiral on the vacancy which may arise in the year 1996 was rightly rejected by the respondents because there was no additional anticipated vacancy for the year 1995. Further, the procedure of preparing Select List is continuously followed by the respondents. 28. In the result, this petition is rejected. There will be no order as to costs. 29. Issuance of certified copy of this judgment is expedited. Petition rejected. -----