S. D. PANDIT ( 1 ) RULE D. B. We have heard the petitioner, appearing in person, as also the learned counsel for the respondents in detail. We have also carefully perused (he record. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the writ petition. ( 2 ) PETITIONER, Dr. S. M. Mukherjee, is working in the University Grants Commission as a Deputy Secretary. He has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus to post him as a Joint Secretary in the Head Office at Delhi and to strike down his supersession by Dr. N. K. Jain. ( 3 ) THE University Grants Commission was functioning in Delhi but on 28. 6. 1994 a decision was taken to decentralise the working of the Commission and, therefore, six regional offices at Bhopal, Ghaziabad, Guwahati, Poona, Hyderabad and Calcutta were established. It was also decided that each of these six regional offices should be headed by a Joint Secretary and for that purpose additional posts of Joints Secretaries were created. Thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 15. 7. 1994 and the said DPC recommended the promotion of five persons, viz. Dr. T. R. Kern; Dr. Gurbuxsingh;dr. Samtopono;shri A. L. Vohra;and Shri R. K. Chauhan, and accordingly a promotion order was issued. ( 4 ) OUT of these selected persons Shri R. K. Chauhan was posted at Guwahati; Shri A. L. Vohra was posted at Bhopal and others were posted in the other regional centres. Thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 3. 10. 1994 and in the said DPC meeting Dr. N. K. Jain; Dr. S. M. Mukherjee (petitioner); Dr. P. S. Rajput; and Dr. (Mrs.) N. A. Kazmi were recommended for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary. As there was no vacant post of Joint Secretary at the Head Office Dr. N. K. Jain was posted at Poona, petitioner S. M. Mukherjee was posted at Guwahati; Dr. P. S. Rajput was posted at Bhopal and Dr. (Mrs.) N. A. Kazmi was kept on the waiting list. ( 5 ) BEFORE this, Shri A. L. Vohra was posted at Delhi, ie the Head Office on 20. 7. 1994 as one post of Joint Secretary had become vacant and Shri R. K. Chauhan, who was junior to Shri A. L. Vohra, was posted at Ghaziabad in view of the representation made by them for transferring them and posting them at Delhi. 7. 1994 as one post of Joint Secretary had become vacant and Shri R. K. Chauhan, who was junior to Shri A. L. Vohra, was posted at Ghaziabad in view of the representation made by them for transferring them and posting them at Delhi. ( 6 ) THOUGH the petitioner was posted at Guwahati, he did not accept the said posting and, therefore, his promotion/posting was cancelled and he continued to work as Deputy Secretary at the Head Office at Delhi. ( 7 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that though Dr. N. K. Jam was Juniorto him in the second D. P. C. selection he was shown above him and, thus, he is superseded and that supersession of him is illegal and improper. |t is also his contention that he had made representation to give posting at Delhi only and he was not given that posting. On the contrary, Shri A. L. Vohra was brought to Delhi and. . therefore, there is discrimination in his case and his promotion has also been illegally and improperly cancelled. Therefore, he has filed the present petition and he is seeking the setting aside of his supersession by Dr. N. K. Jain and he also seeks setting aside the order of cancellation of his promotion and seeks his promotion and posting at Delhi only in the post of Joint Secretary. ( 8 ) THE claim of the petitioner is contested by the respondents by filing the counter affidavit. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the decision dated 28. 6. 1994 to decentralise the working of the University Grants Commission was taken in public interest and in the better interest of the administration and, thereafter, these six regional offices were established. It is further contended that the posting of the persons in the post of Joint Secretary is to be done at the Headquarters as also the regional centres and the said post of Joint Secretary is a transferable post. The incumbents holding the said post are transferrable from the regional office to the head office and vice-versa depending upon administrative convenience and contingencies. The said postings are also made on the basis of inter se seniority within the cadre of Joint Secretary. Seniors are posted at the Head Office and juniors are posted at the regional offices. Shri A. L. Vohra was to retire on 31. 1. The said postings are also made on the basis of inter se seniority within the cadre of Joint Secretary. Seniors are posted at the Head Office and juniors are posted at the regional offices. Shri A. L. Vohra was to retire on 31. 1. 1995 and. Shri R. K. Chauhan will be coming in his place. Shri R. K. Chauhan s wife has undergone a major heart surgery and she has to attend the All India Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi frequently. Shri R. K. Chauhan had made a representation to the University Grants Commission and taking into consideration his seniority as well as his genuine difficulties he is to be posted at Delhi in place of Shri A. L. Vohra. It is further contended that after his selection to the said promotional post Dr. Mukherjee was given the posting at Guwahati but he refused to join the said posting and, therefore, his promotion was cancelled. The regional office at Calcutta was established subsequently and after its establishment petitioner was again offered the post of Joint Secretary at Calcutta but he refused to accept the same. Thus, there is no discrimination of any nature as the policy followed by the University Grants Commission. till today is that the juniors are to go and work initially at the regional office and they are to be brought to the Head Office by reference to their seniority. ( 9 ) IT is further contended that the second DPC meeting held on 3. 10. 1994 had taken into consideration the record and while making the selection they had placed Dr. N. K. Jain above the petitioner and the said placement of Dr. N. K. Jain above the petitioner was purely based on merits and there is no discrimination or violation of any fundamental rights of the petitioner. Therefore, in these circumstances there is no substances in the claim made by the petitioner in this petition and, therefore, his petition should be dismissed with costs. ( 10 ) THERE is no dispute over the fact that the University Grants Commission has taken a decision to decentralise the working in public interest and in the better interest of the administration and, therefore, six regional offices at Bhopal, Ghaziabad, Guwahati, Poona, Hyderabad and Calcutta were established. ( 10 ) THERE is no dispute over the fact that the University Grants Commission has taken a decision to decentralise the working in public interest and in the better interest of the administration and, therefore, six regional offices at Bhopal, Ghaziabad, Guwahati, Poona, Hyderabad and Calcutta were established. It is also not in dispute that these regional officesarea) be headed by the Joint Secretaries and for thai purpose additional posts of Joint Secretaries are created. Thereafter, a Departmental Promotion Committee met on 15. 7. 1994 after the establishment of the first five regional offices, viz. Bhopal, Ghaziabad, Guwahati, Poona and Hyderabad and five persons, viz. Dr. T. R. Kem; Dr. Gurbux Singh; Dr. Samtopono;shri A. L. Vohra; and Shri R. K. Chauhan were promoted as Joint Secretaries. It is also an admitted fact that all these persons who were promoted are senior to the petitioner Dr. S. M. Mukherjee. These five persons who were selected and promoted were posted as Joint Secretaries at the five regional offices and persons who were senior to them were continued as Joint Secretaries at the Head Office. ( 11 ) THEREAFTER, the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 3. 10. 1994 in view of three vacancies that had arisen and in the said Departmental Promotion Committee meeting Dr. N. K. Jain; petitioner Dr. S. M. Mukherjee, Dr. P,s. Rajput and Dr. (Mrs.) N. A. Kazmi were promoted as Joint Secretaries. After the selection of these four persons as per the earlier policy Dr. N. K. Jain was posted at Poona, petitioner was posted at Guwahati and Dr. P. S. Rajput was posted at Bhopal and Dr. (Mrs.) N. A. Kazmi was kept on the waiting list. This posting against the second selection is in pursuance of the earlier policy of the junior going to the regional office S. M. Mukherjee Vs. Dr. G. Ram Reddy, Chairman UGC and Another 61 and senior coming to the Head Office. Petitioner is not in a position to point out from the material on record that on promotion any person was posted at the Head Office and a senior was posted at the regional office. Therefore, the posting of the petitioner at Guwahati was in continuation of the practice followed by the University Grants Commission. Petitioner is not in a position to point out from the material on record that on promotion any person was posted at the Head Office and a senior was posted at the regional office. Therefore, the posting of the petitioner at Guwahati was in continuation of the practice followed by the University Grants Commission. It is an admitted fact that though the petitioner was posted on promotion at Guwahati he did not join the said posting and because of his refusal to join the said posting his promotion was cancelld and then the said posting was offered to Dr. (Mrs.) N. A. Kazmi and as she also refused to join her promotion was also cancelled. This conduct on the part of the University Grants Commission clearly shows that the University Grants Commission is not showing favour to anybody or acting prejudicial to anybody and there is no case of any discrimination nation. ( 12 ) THE respondent has clearly averred in the counter affidavit that after the creation of the regional office at Calcutta, which is the native place of the petitioner, petitioner was offered the said posting but he turned down the said offer by refusing to go out of Delhi. It is an admitted fact that Shri A. L. Vohra retired on 31. 1. 1995 on attaining the age of superannuation. Shri A. L. Vohra had been brought to Delhi though there was claim for Delhi posting by both Shri A. L. Vohra and Shri R. K. Chauhan. Shri R. K. Chauhan s wife had undergone major heart surgery and she had to attend the All India Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi very often and on that personal ground Shri R. K. Chauhan had sought his posting at New Delhi. As per the policy followed by the University Grants Commission, Shri A. L. Vohra, being senior to Shri R. K. Chauhan, Shri A. L. Vohra was brought to Delhi and Shri R. K, Chauhan was posted at Ghaziabad. The respondents have clearly stated that in the vacancy of Shri A. L. Vohra Shri R. K. Chauhan is to be posted atthe Head Office. The respondents have clearly stated that in the vacancy of Shri A. L. Vohra Shri R. K. Chauhan is to be posted atthe Head Office. We had suggested to the respondent to give to the petitioner posting at Ghaziabad and we had also asked the petitioner as to whether he would accept the posting at Ghaziabad but he refused to accept the posting even at Ghaziabad, which is at a distance of hardly one hour journey from New Delhi. From the material on record it is not possible to hold that petitioner is being discriminated. On the contrary, the material on record clearly shows that the petitioner wants promotion only at the Head Offrice, He wants the promotion and only the desired posting and since he is not getting his desired posting he has come before this Court by making unwarranted allegation of discrimination. Thus, we are of the opinion that his claim for discrimination is not at all made out. ( 13 ) NO doubt a circular was issued by the University Grants Commission on 20. 7. 94 to which the petitioner has drawn our attention and he has put reliance on the following contents of the said circular: "none of the employees posted in regional office will be transfered back to Delhi for a period of two years and, thereafter, his request may be considered, subject to availability of the first vacancy after two years. " ( 14 ) RELYING on the contents of the above circular petitioner urged before us that the decisions of the University Grants Commission to bring the Joint Sectaries from the regional office to the Head Office is contrary to its own circular but that submission of him is not at all correct. The above quoted contents are tobe read alongwith the other contents of the circular. The said circular dated 28. 7. 94 bearing No. F. 5-14/94 (Admn. l/aandb) reads as under: "in continuation of the office notice asking for options from the employees for posting in Regional Offices, this is to hereby clarify that none of the UGC employees working at Delhi will be posted at any Regional 0ffice without his consent. First, consent would be sough from persons holding equivalent post. If no such person opts for going to a Regional Office the vacancy would be given to the next eligible person selected by the D. P. C. on promotion. First, consent would be sough from persons holding equivalent post. If no such person opts for going to a Regional Office the vacancy would be given to the next eligible person selected by the D. P. C. on promotion. In case any of the employees opts for going on promotion to any Regional Office, his seniority in the cadre will be maintained as per rules. None of the employees posted in a Regional Office, will be transferred back to Delhi for a period of two years and thereafter his request may be considered subject to availability of first vacancy after two years. The posts in the Regional Offices will be in addition tothe posts in the UGC main office" ( 15 ) IF the above circular is read then it would be quite clear that the said circular is not at all applicable to the Joint Secretaries. The said circular is applicable to other, employees who have voluntary opted to go to the regional offices. The circular is issued with a view to curb the demands for repatriation when they had themselves opted to go to the regional offices. The post of Joint Secretaries at the regional office is not at the request or on account of the option but because of the administrative exigencies of the University Grants Commission. Thus, the said circular could not be relied upon for holding that the posting of the senior Joint Secretaries from the regional office to the Head Office is contrary to the policy of the respondent University Grants Commission. ( 16 ) THUS, we are of the view that the policy followed by the University Grants Commission of posting the junior Joint Secretary at the Regional Office and bring the Joint Secretaries from the Regional Office to the Head Office by giving preference to seniorty could not be said to be illegal or improper or against the principles of natural justice. ( 17 ) NO doubt in the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting held on 28. 10. 1994 Dr. N. K. Jain who was junior in the cadre of Deputy Secretary to the present petitioner, has been placed above the petitioner, by the Selection Committee. We had called for and seen the Minutes of the Selection Committee Meeting as well as the confidential reports of the petitioner as also of Dr. 10. 1994 Dr. N. K. Jain who was junior in the cadre of Deputy Secretary to the present petitioner, has been placed above the petitioner, by the Selection Committee. We had called for and seen the Minutes of the Selection Committee Meeting as well as the confidential reports of the petitioner as also of Dr. N. K. Jain and we are satisfied that the Selection Committee was justified in placing Shri N. K. Jain above the petitioner before us. After all it is a selection on merits and not on0 seniorty alone. Thus, we hold that there is no improper supersession of the petitioner. ( 18 ) IN conclusion we hold that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition. Parties are left to bear their own costs.