S.K. KAR, J.— This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India presented by Mizoram Administrative Officers, (Non-Gazetted) Association, in short, AO (NG), against the State of Mizoram and other Public Respondents including Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC), respondent No. 5. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners total 28 numbers of them, claimed that they were recruited as Administrative Officers after the Mizoram disturbance of 1966, when peace returned and the administration felt exigencies of creating the posts of Administrative Officers. Initially Administrative Officers were from the Assam Civil Service, Class II and ex-emergency Commission Officers. On declaration of Mizoram an Union Territory gradually Administrative Officers were recruited in the year, 1973,1976,1980,1982 and 1986 through Open Competitive Examination from amongst the Graduates. There was Administrative Officers (Non Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1975 framed by the Government defining such A.O. as Class HI, Non Gazetted and the Lt. Governor of Mizoram by his decision, vide Memo No. POL. 4/727 22 dated 16.6.82, directed AOs to be the training ground and sources of recruitment for permanent vacancies in the Administration including Police Personnel's and as such the posts of AO(NG) attracted brilliant graduates. That the petitioners inspite of completion of 15-20 years of service have remained in the same grade not-withstanding the fact that on entry they were promised promotion on completion of 5 years of service. There was no scope of promotion for the AOs (NG) under Administrative Officers' (Non Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1975, although Mizoram Subordinate Civil Services, Group 'B' Recruitment Rules, 1983 made avenues for 50% vacancies to AO (NG) who had regular service for more than 5 years in the Grade. But Mizoram Subordinate Civil Services Rules, 1988 came into force writing off promotional avenues to them without the consent of the petitioners. Mizoram Subordinate Civil Services, Group 'B' posts were all inducted into Mizoram Civil Service. Mizoram Civil Service Rules, 1988 and Amendment Rules, 1992 provided 33 I/ 3% of the vacancies to be filled up from persons, holding Gazetted posts in substantive capacity in connection with the affairs of the State, with not less than 13 years of service by method of selection. That such Rules were violative of the Principle of Natural Justice and detrimental to Fundamental Rights of the petitioners. Although provided by Government instruction petitioners' Association was not consulted by the Government before framing the rules. That such Rules were violative of the Principle of Natural Justice and detrimental to Fundamental Rights of the petitioners. Although provided by Government instruction petitioners' Association was not consulted by the Government before framing the rules. That finally Mizoram Civil Services Rules, 2000 has come into force with 33 1/3% promotional quota for persons holding substantive post with 5 years service and for AO(NG) with 8 years service. Representations of the petitioners to upgrade them into M.C.S. (Junior Grade) were not considered by the Government. That in the meantime, Administrative Reforms Commission report was submitted to the Government recommending induction of the AO (NG) to Mizoram Civil Services (Junior Grade) by creating circles of Administrative Units, if necessary, but the Government has rejected the report on flimsy grounds. Though many of the AOs (NG) have already been inducted into MCS, the case of the present petitioners were not considered at all inspite of their rendering services spreading from 15 to 25 years. That upholding of the implementation of Mizroam Civil Service Rules, 2000 has come to seal every avenues for promotion of the petitioners curtailing their rights and they, having no other alternative remedy, have approached this Court for appropriated orders, directing induction of the petitioners' Association to MCS and/or for setting aside, or for making in-effective the provisions of Mizoram Civil Service Rules, 2000, in so far the rules violate the legal/ fundamental rights of the petitioners and to direct creation of proper scheme providing for proper avenues for promotions of the members of the petitioners' Association etc. 3. Respondents No. 1-4 have filed joint affidavit-in-opposition (excluding Mizoram Public Service Commission, respondent No. 5, and contended inter alia, that there was unexplained delay in presenting this case of non-promotion, which the petitioners claimed was due in 1976 but they approached the Court after expiry of about 26 years and only in 2002 for which fact alone the petition is liable to be dismissed/rejected. That the petitioners have not submitted any documents to show that Rolungmuana was duly authorised to plead for Administrative Officers (NG). That in fact, during the years 1974-75, AO (NG) and AO (G) Class II were recruited and during recruitment process, many AOs (NG) took part in the process and some of them came out successful. That the petitioners have not submitted any documents to show that Rolungmuana was duly authorised to plead for Administrative Officers (NG). That in fact, during the years 1974-75, AO (NG) and AO (G) Class II were recruited and during recruitment process, many AOs (NG) took part in the process and some of them came out successful. In the years 1977-78,13 numbers of AOS (NG) were recruited under the Mizoram Subordinate Civil Service, Group 'B' Recruitment Rules, 1983 where two officers from AO (NG) were recruited through examination. That there was always special attention of the Government in providing future promotion for AO (NG). In the MCS Rules, 1977, no provision was made for promotion of A.O. (NG) because the feeder grade for MCS Grade II was Group B Gazetted. However, the AOs (NG) were favourably given promotional quota keeping 50% of the vacancies reserved for Mizoram Subordinate Civil Service, Group n when the 1983 Rules were framed. That, 1988 Rules has been reconstituted by repealing the MCS Rules of 1977 and re-structuring the service into 4 grades, and 33 1/3% of the vacancies were reserved for Gazetted Officers of 8 years of service and AO (NG) of 13 years of service. They submitted that there cannot be any question of giving special treatment to the Writ petitioners with deprivation to others similarly situated persons. That not to speak of the cases of the petitioners, there are usually other service personnels for whom there is no scope for promotion during the entire service career and accordingly. Government is thinking to create other-avenues and/or introducing the Assured Career Progressive Scheme to give reliefs to the officers who are having no scope for promotion. That if total impact from the beginning to end is taken, then the petitioners had got promotional avenues to more than 50% of the posts created. That act of framing rules comes under the policy decision of the Government which cannot be agitated before the Court of Law. That out of the total cadre of AO(NG), containing 69 persons most of them have already been promoted to Mizoram Civil Service and there are only 27 members left. That it is only a matter of time that they would be promoted to the Mizoram Civil Service subject to the availability of vacancies and in according to their respective merit and the quota prescribed by the Rules. That it is only a matter of time that they would be promoted to the Mizoram Civil Service subject to the availability of vacancies and in according to their respective merit and the quota prescribed by the Rules. Therefore, the grievances of the petitioner are neither reasonable nor genuine. (Emphasis given). For the reasons the promotional avenues persist in the recent Mizoram Civil Services Rules of 2000, there is no question of asking for enforcement of any right of the petitioners which prayer is superfluous and that they have no right to interfere with the policy decisions of the Government etc. 4. The petitioners thereafter filed a reply to the affidavit-in-opposition and again Addl. rejoinder affidavit also denying question of delay etc. and claiming that there was act of violation of natural justice, denial of the legitimate expectations and bar of promissory estoppel etc. as the case of AO (NG) for promotion to higher grade was not considered. That a relaxation made from time to time under Rule 27 of the MCS Rules, 1988 did not help the petitioners to solve their problems of promotional avenues. That but for the curtailment of the promotional avenues all of them, by now,. Would have been promoted to Mizoram Civil Service. The petitioners is a registered Association bearing registration No. MAP. 115/72/89, dated 18.4.1974 and the its President has been authorised by resolution dated 1.5.2001 to file the petition. Giving further statistics of recruitment during different years for different categories, both by direct and by promotion, it was maintained that there are difference between direct and promotional recruitment of 56 in total alongwith fact of 5 persons being promoted from other services. 5.I have heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the Anenxures accompanying the Writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition, reply to the affidavit and rejoinder etc. My notice has been drawn by the petitioners to different case-laws reported as (2000) 10 SCC 166 , (1998) 2 SCC 502 , (1998) 7 SCC 66 , (1990) 2 SCC 707 ; whereas respondents relied on citations (1998) 8 SCC 765 , (1994) 5 SCC 509 , (1992) 2 SCC 643 . I have gone through laws cited as aforesaid. 6. I have gone through laws cited as aforesaid. 6. (2000) 10 SCC 166 has dealt with the case of an Electrician, Grade I, who was promoted to Junior Engineer by subsequently his reversion was ordered by Engineer-in-Chief of Himachal Pradesh on ground that the promotion was erroneous and was done under a mistaken be left. Hon'ble Apex Court turned down such plea under particular facts and circumstances of the case, holding: "The record reveals that the respondent State had taken a conscious decision to promote the appellant and was, therefore, not justified in reverting him allegedly on the ground of non-availability of reservation as per instructions of the Government. The respondents cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath inasmuch as in the petition filed by Mr. Walia they justified the promotion of the appellant by stating that he was deprived of his promotion erroneously and when the question of his promotion came, it took the same plea of erroneously promoting him under a mistaken belief. In this case, before us there is no case of reversion etc. and facts are neither similar nor identical. In my view, the law has been misquoted. The estoppel there was against the action of the Govt blowing hot and cold in the same breath. Factual position here being quite different there is no case of estoppel. 7. (1998) 7 SCC 66 deals with the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' in administrative law by a three member Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It has dealt in details the doctrinaire policy of 'Legitimate Expectation'. It says that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is akin to natural justice, reasonableness and promissory estoppel and is a source of both procedural as well as substantive (in Selective Cases) rights, the basic conditions of locus standi for invoking it being that the persons aggrieved should have altered his position by acting upon action/ inaction of the State and that it is always a question of fact to be ascertained whether there was any case of legitimate expectation or not. It was also held that policy decision of State based on objective assessment of prevailing circumstances may upset legitimate expectation in a particular case. In that case almost all the facts of 'legitimate expectation' were referred and discussed quoting from several earlier decisions of the Court. It was also held that policy decision of State based on objective assessment of prevailing circumstances may upset legitimate expectation in a particular case. In that case almost all the facts of 'legitimate expectation' were referred and discussed quoting from several earlier decisions of the Court. One of such quotation is in para 24 of the judgment which I reproduce being in opinion that for the time being it will serve the purpose of the case in hand, I quote: "24. In food Corpn. of India V. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries it was held that in all state actions, the State has to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. It was further observed that there is no unfettered discretion in public law and a public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. It was further observed as under (SCC p. 76, para 8) "8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the contex is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may out weight what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent". Li the instant case it is not un-natural that one would expect promotion when taken in service but the petitioners have failed to plead any case of promise of the Govt. Rather they have acquiesced the action of the Govt. Li the instant case it is not un-natural that one would expect promotion when taken in service but the petitioners have failed to plead any case of promise of the Govt. Rather they have acquiesced the action of the Govt. by taking part in the selection process since 1973 onward and a good number of them have already, as admitted, been inducted in M.C.S. When looked against the light of observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted above, there is no case of petitioners' to plead legitimate expectation. I would quote from Writ-petition itself for clarification. "17. That in the face of all the above mentioned facts and recommendation/proposals/report, the respondent has kept an emphasis silence, seriously violating the fundamental rights of your petitioner and violating the principles of natural justice. Here it may be mentioned that many of the AOs (NG) have also been inducted to M.C.S. However the case of your humble petitioner's members has remained unconsidered". Moreover, there was provisions in every rules framed by Government to regulate the M.C.S. Condition a scope of promotion of the AO(NG) as per pleadings on record. Government has stated on oath that it is sympathetic to plight of the petitioners and would avail all opportunities to help them and it is only matter of time that they would be promoted (Para 11 of counter-affidavit) So, there is no specific assertion of any case by the petitioners to attract the doctrine of legitimate expectation. 8. Coming to the citation (1998) 2 SCC 502 , it also deals with promissory estoppel (as citation 1, (Supra). Such promissory estoppel was evolved by Court on principles of equity. It has been held, in the factual context of allegation of assurance by Director, Medical Education and Training that appellants will be promoted to post of lecturers from the post of Demonstrator, without any clear, sound and positive averment as to which offer of the Govt., when and in what manner gave the assurance to the appellants, that bald pleadings cannot be made the foundation of invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. On pleading in the present case also there is absolutely no case of estoppel, promissory or otherwise and ratio is not applicable. 9. The last case-law relied upon by the petitioner is (1990) 2 SCC 707 (at page 713), deals with the question of judicial review and its limits thereof. On pleading in the present case also there is absolutely no case of estoppel, promissory or otherwise and ratio is not applicable. 9. The last case-law relied upon by the petitioner is (1990) 2 SCC 707 (at page 713), deals with the question of judicial review and its limits thereof. Referring to earlier decisions reported as (1971) 2 SCC 747 , (1985) 3 SCC 169 and 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 364, the Hon'ble Apex Court held (by quoting from those judgment) as below : "When a State action is challenged, the function of the Court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the Court must strike down the action. While doing so, the Court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The Court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive...." 10. Therefore, vide discussions, I find none of the citation is going to help the petitioners in any way to upheld their contention. The petitioners here could plead hardly anything to trace out any enforceable right or to point out any case of arbitariness, discrimination or unfairness as the case may be. There is the admitted case of a large number of the cadre of the association being already inducted by following the relevant Rules into the Mizoram Civil Services. The petitioners contentions inter alia, is that but for reservation of higher quota all of them would have been by now promoted to MCS. They are blowing hot and cold in the same breath. I quote from para 11 of Reply-affidavit' to counter by respondent: "...If 50% of vacancies as provided under Rule 4 of the Mizoram Subordinate Civil Service were continue in the Mizoram Civil Service (Amendment Rules) 1988 all the petitioners' member would have entered into the Mizoram Civil Service". 11. As against all these assertions by the Writ petitioners, the simple submission from the learned Govt. 11. As against all these assertions by the Writ petitioners, the simple submission from the learned Govt. Advocate is that there is no enforceable right, under facts and circumstances of the case, and policy decisions of the Govt. cannot be interfered by Court in exercise of its power under concept of Judicial Review etc. I was referred to in this context through citations quoted earlier. 12. In (1998) 8 SCC 765 (para 6). It was held on facts, that High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution could not direct the Government to pass an order giving effect to recommendation of House Committee regarding applicability of the merit promotion scheme." (1994) 5 SCC 509 (vide paras 52/53 at page 536/7) says that doctrine of legislative expectation arises only in . the field of administrate decisions. (1992) 2 SCC 643 (at page 65 8) dictates that the theory of legislative expectation cannot defeat or invalidate a legislation. It may at the most be used against an administrative action, and even there it may not be an indefeasible right'. 13. In view of the discussions made I am constrained to find and hold that petitioners have filed to trace out any indefeasible rights in their favour. There is no case of arbitrainess or denial of justice to them by the Government. Rather the opposite is the case when we refresh memory and concentrate on facts given in affidavit-in-opposition. I am tempted to quote para 11 and 13 of the said counter to impress the view. "11. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition, I say that members of the petitioner's association while highlighting their grievances have failed to appreciate the fact that as many as 69 nos. of AO (NG) have been promoted to the Mizoram Civil Service and that there are only 27 members left who are holding the post of AO (NGs). That it is only a matter of time that they would be promoted to the Mizoram Civil Service subject to the availability of vacancies and in according to their respective merit and the quota prescribed by the Rules. Therefore, the grievances of the petitioner are neither reasonable nor genuine". 12..................... 13. That it is only a matter of time that they would be promoted to the Mizoram Civil Service subject to the availability of vacancies and in according to their respective merit and the quota prescribed by the Rules. Therefore, the grievances of the petitioner are neither reasonable nor genuine". 12..................... 13. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph No. 19 of the writ petition, I say that Rules 8 of the MCS Rules 2000 does not curtail the promotion quote of AO (NGs) provided in MCS (Amendment) Rules, 1988 and it also has not relation with 50% of vacancies reserved for their promotion in the Rules of 1983. In fact, their promotion avenue still persists in the MCS Rules of the 2000". 14. In the results, the petition has no merit and stands dismissed. No costs. 15. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, it is hoped that the petitioners will continue to get sympathy of the Government which they were enjoying till the date of this petition.