S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners who are nine in number and who are serving in the establishment of a. P. High Court either as Copyists or typists have filed this writ petition for the following relief:"for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to implement the orders passed by the then Hon ble Chief justice in the month of July, 1979 fixing the ratio of 2:1:1:1 between assistants, Examiners, Typists and copyists in the place of 4:1 ratio between Assistants/examiners and typists/copyists, on the representation dated 20-4-1979 submitted by the Copyists for the period from July, 1979 to 28-4-1997 (i. e. , the date of notification fixing the ratio of 2:1 in the place of 4:1 between assistants/examiners and Typists/ copyists) with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. " ( 2 ) ALTHOUGH voluminous pleadings and number of documents are filed in this writ petition, the simple and the precise question that arises for decision is whether a Writ of mandamus could be issued to the Chief justice of the High Court to amend the rules framed by him in exercise of the power conferred under Article 229 of the constitution of India. ( 3 ) TO put it briefly, the grievance of the petitioners is this; on a representation made by the Copyists on 20-4-1979 to the honourable Chief Justice of the High Court to fix the promotional ratio of 2:1:1:1 i. e. , in a cycle of five vacancies earmarking two for assistants, one for Examiners; one for typists and one for Copyist for promotional cadre of Assistant Section Officer, the hon ble Chief Justice acceded to the request. But the Registry of the High Court did not take further steps to amend the rules framed by the Hon ble Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution of india in terms of the decision taken by the chief Justice, and this fact was not known to the petitioners till an additional counter- affidavit was filed by the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court in w. P. No. 10712 of 1997 wherein it was disclosed that the Hon ble Chief Justice acceded to the request of the Copyists in the month of July, 1979 and permitted the amendment of the Rules. ( 4 ) IN response to Rule nisi, on behalf of the respondents, the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court has filed counter-affidavit opposing the prayer. ( 5 ) SMT. Bhaskar Laxmi learned Standing counsel for the respondents also made available to us the original records at the time of hearing. We have perused the original records. From the original record, it is seen that in the month of July, 1979 the registry of the High Court proposed to fix the ratio for promotion to the cadre of assistants from the feeder cadres of Junior assistants, Examiners, Typists and copyists, in the ratio of 2:1:1:1. This proposal was placed before the Hon ble chief Justice for consideration and approval. The Hon ble Chief Justice as can be seen from the original record, approved the said proposal of the Registry on 10-7-1979. The original records also disclose that after this event, some more representations were received from the concerned feeder classes of employees for fixing the ratio favourable to their class. Ultimately all these representations seem to have been placed before the Chief Justice for consideration on 21-2-1983. However, no order made by the Hon ble Chief Justice on the proposal of the Registry is forthcoming from the original records. ( 6 ) BE that as it may, the fact remains that in pursuance of the approval granted by the hon ble Chief Justice on 10-7-1979, and in pursuance of the proposal made by the registry, no further steps were taken to amend the rules framed by the Hon ble chief Justice under Article 229 of the constitution. It cannot be gainsaid that the right of promotion is not a vested right, unless the statute provides for. It cannot be gainsaid that the right of promotion is not a vested right, unless the statute provides for. If this is so, the ratio of promotion cannot be a vested right. Unless the Rules framed by the hon ble Chief Justice of the High Court under Article 229 of the Constitution are amended and the same are published in the official Gazette, as required under law, the petitioners enforcing their promotional rights in the ratio of 2:1:1:1 does not arise. The hard fact in the present case is that during the relevant time in respect of which, the relief is sought i. e. , between 20-4-1979 to 28-4-1997, the 1975 Rules framed by the Hon ble Chief Justice under article 229 of the Constitution were not amended to provide the promotional opportunities to the abovementioned four categories of employees in the ratio of 2:1:1:1. ( 7 ) SECONDLY the relief sought for in this writ petition is totally misconceived and under no circumstance a Writ of Mandamus shall go to the Rule making authority, in the instant case, the Chief Justice to amend the rules under Article 229 of the Constitution in a particular way. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. A. R. Zakki and others, mallikarjuna Rao vs. State of A. P. , Supreme court Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India Asif Hameed vs. State of Jammu and kashmir and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. T. Gopala Krishnan Murthi and others and in several other judgments has opined that the court cannot require the Executive to exercise the rule making power in a particular way and cannot act either as the law making or rule making authority. It is needless to state that the action of the hon ble Chief Justice in framing the Rules under 229 of the Constitution is a legislative act and therefore, he acts as a rule making authority under Article 229 of the constitution. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons the Court cannot grant the relief sought for by the petitioners. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.