M. KATJU, UMESHWAR PANDEY, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have challenged the Impugned communication dated 22. 5. 2003 issued by the assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, and have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to declare the final select list on the basis of the written examination held on 18. 2. 2001 and the interview completed in November, 2002, for promotion to the post of officer Scale-II from amongst officers Scale-I. ( 3 ) THE petitioners are officers Scale-I in Muzaffarnagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. They appeared in the examination for promotion to officer Grade-II. The written examination was held on 18. 2. 2001 and the petitioners qualified and appeared in the interview in November, 2002, as stated in para 20 to the writ petition. However, the final result has not been declared and instead on 22. 5. 2003 the impugned letter was issued cancelling the examination vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. ( 4 ) WE have carefully perused the impugned order dated 22. 5. 2003. That order states that in accordance with the advice of the Finance Ministry (Banking Department), the examination was being cancelled and fresh examination will be held. ( 5 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed. Annexure-C. A. 2 thereof is the letter of the Finance ministry dated 3. 4. 1993 in which it is stated that the question papers should be both in Hindi and english and the candidates should be allowed to give the answers in Hindi also. As stated in para 9 of the counter-affidavit, the examination in question was cancelled so that question papers can be in both Hindi and English. In para 14 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the examination for the selection was only in English language, and hence the examination was cancelled. ( 6 ) IT is well-settled that this Court will not interfere in policy matters unless there is clear violation of law vide Union of India v. International Trading Company, JT 2003 (4) SC 549 ; g. B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council, AIR 1991 SC 1153 : AIR 2003 SCW 2828 (vide para 18) ; S. K. Dutta v. Union of India, (1997) 10 SCC 453 ; State of Punjab v. R. L. Bagga, 1998 (2) AWC 2. 86 (SC) (NOC) : (1998) 4 SCC 117 ; Premium Granites v. State of Tamilnadu, air 1994 SC 2233 and Union of India v. R. Reddappa, (1993) 4 SCC 269 , etc. ( 7 ) HINDI is the official language of the country vide Article 343 (1) of the Constitution and we can see no objection to having the question papers both in English and Hindi and the answers also both in Hindi and English, if the respondent-bank so desires. All the students in this country do not have good knowledge of English. Most of the students have to study in vernacular schools and cannot afford to study in convent schools. Such students may be handicapped as they may not properly understand the questions in English language as their knowledge of English may not be very good. Hence, it is obvious that the purpose of the impugned decision was that such persons should not be handicapped and should not suffer from any disadvantage merely because they do not know good English. We can see no objection to the stand taken by the respondents, as it is a policy decision and cannot be regarded as unreasonable or arbitrary. ( 8 ) IT is well-settled that mere selection does not confer any indefeasible right to get appointment vide Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and Ors. , 2003 (98) FLR 1186 (SC) and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 , etc. ( 9 ) IN the aforesaid decisions, it was held that a person, who has been selected has no absolute right to get appointment. The petitioners have not even been selected and hence, they cannot complain that any right of theirs has been affected. ( 10 ) FOR the reason given above, we find no merit in this petition. Petition is dismissed. .