( 1 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that rule 22 of the A. P. State and Subordinate services Rules (the Rules, for brevity) is only an enabling provision. By reason of such an enabling provision, the State is not obliged to make any reservation for ex-service men. If no notification has been issued directing reservation for Ex-service men, the petitioner who had applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Public prosecutor and having not been found suitable for such appointment, cannot now turn round and contend that the State should have made reservation for ex-service men for the post of Asst. Public prosecutor. ( 2 ) IT may be that by reason of the A. P. State Prosecution Service Rules, Rule 22 of the Rules, would be applicable, but the same has to be read in the context thereof, i. e. , having regard to the purpose for which such a rule has been made. It is now well settled principle of law that the Court in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the constitution of India neither can direct to give effect to an enabling provision nor the petitioner can be said to have acquired any legal right for issuance of a Writ of mandamus in the absence of any notification fixing any quota for Ex-service men. It is also well settled principle of law that a Writ of Mandamus can be issued by the High Court if the petitioner has pleaded and proved the existence of a legal right of himself and corresponding legal duty upon the respondents. ( 3 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.