DILIP GUPTA, J. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10 8. 2001 of the learned Judge dismissing the petition, which had been filed with the principal relief that respondent No. 3, namely, the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Baroda House, New Delhi may be directed to declare the entire result of the selection held for the post of Head Constables as notified by the Notification dated 12-8-1998. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The controversy involved in the writ petition out of which the Special Appeal arises relates to the promotion of the Constables working in the Railway Protection Force to the post of Head Constables. 4. Prior to the implementation of the recommendations of the Vth Central Pay Commission dated 4-12- 1997 the rank structure of the Railway Protection Force up to the post of Head Constables as the position emerges from the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) was as under:- (i) Constable-direct recruitment, (ii) Naik-by promotion from the constables on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit, (iii) Head Constable-by promotion: (a) 60% under Rule 70 from amongst Naik, (b) 40% under Rule 72 by open competition from all Naik and constables who have put in 8 years of service in the Force on the date of the notification. 5. In October, 1997 a panel of 506 candidates was formed for promotion to the rank of Naik from amongst the eligible candidates under Rule 70 of the Rules. Under Rule 64 it has been provided that enrolled members for promotion to the rank of Naik shall undergo a special course at any training Institution of the Force. This training was to commence from 20-2-1998 but before the training could start, the post of Naik was abolished and redesignated as Head Constable w. e. f. 4-12-1997 by the Ministry of Railways. On account of the abolition of the post of Naik, a decision was taken by the Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board that the candidates empanelled under Rule 70 of the Rules for promotion as Naik and waiting for the pre-promotional course training under Rule 64 of the Rules should not be sent for this training. On account of the abolition of the post of Naik, a decision was taken by the Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board that the candidates empanelled under Rule 70 of the Rules for promotion as Naik and waiting for the pre-promotional course training under Rule 64 of the Rules should not be sent for this training. It was also decided that the 506 vacancies to the post of Naik, which had, since been abolished, should be added to the existing 225 vacancies of Head Constables. The vacancies of Head Constables thus stood increased to 731 and for filling up 731 posts of Head Constables on promotional basis, a notification dated 12-8-1998 was issued for holding the selection of the Head Constables both under Rules 70 and 72 of the Rules. 6. The petitioner appellants are some of those candidates who had been appointed as constables in the Railway Protection Force and had appeared at the departmental competition for promotion to the post of Head Constables under Rule 72 in the month of January, 1999. Before the result of the said selection could be declared, a policy decision was taken by the Railway Board, which was conveyed by means of the communication dated 23-2-1999. It was decided that the matter relating to the constables who had been selected for promotion to the rank of Naik prior to 4-12-1997 and were waiting for the pre- promotional course training had been reviewed on a reference from the Northern Railway and it was decided by the Director General, Railway Protection Force that such candidates may now be sent for pre-promotional course training for the post of Head Constable as the post of Naik had been abolished w. e. f. 4-12-1997. These promotions would be under Rule 70 of the Rules. In view of the said policy decision, the number of vacancies to the post of Head Constable stood reduced to its original number of 225 and the 506 candidates selected in October, 1997 became entitled to be promoted to the post of Head Constables. Out of these 225 vacancies only 60% were required to be filled up by promotion under Rule 70 and the remaining 40% under Rule 72 of the Rules. Out of these 225 vacancies only 60% were required to be filled up by promotion under Rule 70 and the remaining 40% under Rule 72 of the Rules. This being the position, the number of vacancies to be filled up for the post of Head Constable under Rule 70 of the Rules was determined as 135 (being 60% of 225) and the remaining 90 vacancies were required to be filled up under Rule 72 of the Rules. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid policy decision conveyed by the letter dated 23-2-1999, the petitioner appellants filed a writ petition before this Court contending that all the vacancies, which were notified by the notification dated 12-8-1998 under Rule 72 of the Rules should be filled up and the decision of the respondents to fill up only 90 posts under Rule 72 of the Rules was arbitrary. According to them they had appeared at the selection under Rule 72 of the Rules and since a merit list/panel of 241 constables was prepared, there was no occasion to promote only 90 Constables to the post of Head Constables. Various affidavits were exchanged between the parties in the writ petition. The decision to promote only 90 constables under Rule 72 of the Rules to the post of Head Constables was defended by the Railway Board. The learned Judge hearing the writ petition, by means of his judgment dated 10-8- 2001 dismissed the writ petition holding that the policy decision taken was just and reasonable and did not suffer from any infirmity. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellants submitted that once the vacancies had been notified separately under Rules 70 and 72 of the Rules under the notification dated 12-8-1998, it was not open to the Railway Board to limit the number of promotions under Rule 72 to 90 only and if all the vacancies had been filled up as notified, the petitioner appellants would have been appointed. Learned counsel for the appellants also sought to challenge the policy decision taken in reducing the number of vacancies since according to him, a right had accrued to such candidates once they had appeared in the test held in January, 1999 for promotion under Rule 72 to the post of Head Constables. 9. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner appellants and perused the records. 10. 9. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner appellants and perused the records. 10. Rule 25 deals with the general powers and responsibilities of superior officer. It provides that the superior officers of the Force shall exercise such administrative and disciplinary powers over the members of the Force placed under their command as are specified in Schedules II to IV and such other powers as are conferred on the railway servants of equivalent rank or any such rules relating to such servants and discharge such responsibilities as are specified in these rules or may be specified in any directions issued by the Central Government or the Director General in this behalf. Schedule IV framed under Rule 25 deals with appointment and promotions. It clearly provides that the method of recruitment for Head Constable shall be by promotion, 60% being under Rule 70 and 40% under Rule 72 of the Rules. Under Rule 70 such Naik, who had completed their probation shall be considered for promotion and under Rule 72 Naik and Constables, who had put in 8 years service in the Force on the date of the notification shall be considered for promotion. From a perusal of the records, we find that the notification dated 12-8-1998 had been issued by the Chief Security Commissioner for nomination of the Departmental Committee for filling up the post of Head Constable under Rules 70 and 72 of the Rules. It was also mentioned that selection for filling up 373 vacancies under Rule 70 and 353 vacancies under Rule 72 of the Rules shall be held. Prior to the issuance of this notification, a panel of 506 constables under Rule 70 had been prepared in October, 1997 for promotion of constables to the rank of Naik. Under Rule 64 these empanelled candidates had to undergo a pre-promotional course which was necessary for regular promotion but before these 506 candidates could be sent for the training, the Railway Board had abolished the post of Naik and redesignated it as Head Constable. A decision was taken by the officers not to send these 506 candidates for training. Such candidates agitated for their right to be promoted and also filed writ petitions. A decision was taken by the officers not to send these 506 candidates for training. Such candidates agitated for their right to be promoted and also filed writ petitions. The Railway Board reviewed the entire matter and by its communication dated 23-2-1999 intimated that a policy decision had been taken by the Director General that those candidates, who had been selected for promotion to the rank of Naik prior to 4-12- 1997 i. e. the date on which the post of Naik was abolished and were not sent for pre-promotional course, may be sent for the pre-promotional course training for the post of Head Constable. It was further communicated that these promotions will be under Rule 70 of the Rules. Initially there were only 225 vacancies to the post of Head Constables, which were required to be filled up by promotion under Rules 70 and 72 of the Rules and it was only on account of the fact that the post of Naik had been abolished that these 506 vacancies had been added to the post of Head Constables thereby increasing number of vacancies to 731. In view of the aforesaid policy decision to promote 506 empanelled candidates to the post of Head Constables, the number of vacancies to the post of Head Constables stood reduced the earlier figure of 225. Thus only 40% of 225 posts of Head Constables were required to be filled up by promotion under Rule 72 of the Rules and this is what has been done since only 90 posts had been filled up. 11. We are, therefore, unable to find any infirmity in the decision taken by the Director General to fill up only 90 posts of Head Constables by promotion under Rule 72 and accordingly reject the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner appellants. 12. The challenge to the policy decision taken for limiting the number of promotions to 90 under Rule 72 of the Rules, in our opinion, cannot also be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellants contended that the policy decision was in violation of Rule 70. 8 since the panel could remain operative only for a period of one year from the date of its approval or till it is exhausted which ever is earlier. The relevant clauses of Rules 70 and 72 of the Rules are quoted below:- "70. 8 since the panel could remain operative only for a period of one year from the date of its approval or till it is exhausted which ever is earlier. The relevant clauses of Rules 70 and 72 of the Rules are quoted below:- "70. Procedure for promotion of enrolled members of the Force: 70. 1. The age limit, length of service and other matters relating to promotions and procedures for determining the seniority on appointment, or on promotion shall be in accordance with these rules or where no provision has been made herein for these matters, be in accordance with the Directives. 70. 2. A panel shall be drawn up preferably each year by the Departmental Promotion Committee for each specified category of posts which are required to be filled on the basis of promotion. 70. 3. The number of candidates called for selection under Rule 71 shall, ordinarily, be three times the number required to be empanelled and their names shall be notified thirty days in advance of the date fixed for holding selection: Provided that the name of any enrolled member who has continuously failed to qualify in three attempts shall not be taken into consideration for three subsequent selection for that rank, while calling the candidates for selection as specified above: Provided further that a candidate whose work and conduct has been assessed as "below average" or whose integrity has been found to be doubtful in two or more years out of the five years preceding the selection shall not be empanelled. 70. 4. The size of a panel drawn up in accordance with sub-rule (2) shall ordinarily be such as shall provide for all existing vacancies and vacancies anticipated within the next twelve months from the date on which the Departmental Promotion Committee is constituted plus ten per cent of such total and limited to percentage, if any, specified in Schedule. IV against that category. 70. 8. A panel drawn up in accordance with this rule shall remain operative for a period of one year from the date of its approval or till it is exhausted, whichever is earlier. 72. Guidelines for holding limited departmental competition: 72. 1. Applications from eligible candidates for appearing in the limited departmental competition to the ranks of Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector shall be invited thirty days in advance of the proposed date of holding the said competition. 72. 2. 72. Guidelines for holding limited departmental competition: 72. 1. Applications from eligible candidates for appearing in the limited departmental competition to the ranks of Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector shall be invited thirty days in advance of the proposed date of holding the said competition. 72. 2. The procedure for holding the said competition shall be the same as provided in Rules 70 and 71 except sub-rule (3) of the said rules. 72. 3. A panel shall be drawn from amongst the candidates securing sixty per cent marks or more in the order of merit. " 13. As pointed out above, 506 candidates, whose names were contained in the panel prepared under Rule 70 of the Rules for promotion to the post of Naik from the post of Constables, could not be sent for pre-promotional course training since a decision had been taken by the authorities not to send them for training on account of abolition of the post of Naik. Subsequently a policy decision had been taken on a reference from the Northern Railway by the Director General, Railway Protection Force that such candidates may be sent for training to the post of Head Constables under Rule 70 of the Rules. In our opinion, the Director General had taken a just and a reasonable decision in view of the peculiar facts of the case that the post of Naik had itself been abolished and had been redesignated as Head Constables. Rule 28 read with Rules 22 and 25 of the Rules clearly empowers the Director General to issue directions for the enforcement and furtherance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. These 506 candidates cannot be made to suffer merely on account of the fact that the post of Naik had been redesignated as Head Constables and a decision had been taken not to send them for training. These empanelled candidates were agitating for their right and because of a conscious decision taken for not sending them for training the period of one year lapsed. The bar of one year should not apply in the instant case and, therefore, it cannot be said that the policy decision taken by the Director General was, in any way, contrary to the provisions of the Rules. 14. The bar of one year should not apply in the instant case and, therefore, it cannot be said that the policy decision taken by the Director General was, in any way, contrary to the provisions of the Rules. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellants then contended that the policy decision is clearly arbitrary as it seeks to take away the rights of the petitioner appellants. We regret, we are unable to agree. In our view, the writ petitioner appellants had not acquired any indefeasible rights to be promoted to the post of Head Constables when a policy decision had been taken to promote 506 candidates to the post of Head Constables under Rule 70 of the Rules and thereby bringing down the number of vacancies (as earlier existing) to 225 for being filled up under Rules 70 and 72 of the Rules. The said policy decision is based on sound bona fides and appropriate reasons. The Railway Board is also under no obligation or legal duty to fill up all the vacancies and the decision cannot be characterised as mala fide or unreasonable. 15. For arriving at these conclusions we place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India reported in JT 1991 (2) SC 380, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:- "even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies, or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. " 16. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies, or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. " 16. In this connection, we find it useful to quote a passage also from the decision rendered in Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and others, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 , wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him to such appointment. He could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons. Hence such candidate even if he has a legitimate expectation of being appointed due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In the instant case, when the Chandigarh administration accepted the complaints and cancelled the select list it cannot be said to have acted either arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons. " 17. In the case of the State of Haryana v. Subash Chandear Marvaha and others, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220 , the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "the existence of vacancies does not give a legal right to candidate to be selected for appointment. The examination is for the purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection for appointment comes later. It is open then to the Government to decide how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidates name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the Rules in this respect. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the Rules in this respect. In order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Since there was no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15 persons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under the rules to enforce its performance the petition was clearly misconceived. " 18. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Baitarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar and others, JT 2003 (8) SC 121, it has been observed as under:- "we have already noticed though the advertisement was published in the news-papers and the examinations were held thereafter on 20. 03. 1988, the bank had communicated the revised indent by 23. 08. 1988 well ahead of the intimation of selection and publication of results. The bank had bona fide and genuine reasons for pruning down the indent. If the banks are forced to accommodate officers and field supervisors more than their required indent, it will have a crippling effect on the bank and public interest will stand seriously prejudiced as several employees will have to be unnecessarily retained and public money will have to be expended on them. When public interest completes with private interest, the private interest will have to give way to public interest. In this case, asking the appellant-bank to accommodate as directed by the BSRB would cause loss to public revenue. It has been clearly stated in the counter affidavit filed by the bank before the High Court in the writ petition that on account of various factors including liquidity crisis, ban order for opening new branches and on account of financial burden incurred on account of implementation of Agricultural Rural Debt Relief Scheme and the award given by the National Industrial Tribunal, the bank had decided not fill up the posts though at the time of advertisement indents had been given. Thus, it is seen that the decision of the bank not to fill up the posts was due to financial crisis. Therefore, no direction can be given to issue appointment letters to the respondents/writ petitioners though they have come out successful in the selection process. " 19. For all the reasons stated above and applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are clearly of the opinion that the appellants have not acquired any indefeasible rights to be appointed by promotion under Rule 72 of the Rules and the decision to fill up only 90 vacancies to the post of Head Constable by promotion under Rule 72 of the Rules has been taken in a bona fide manner and the directions as sought for by the appellants cannot be issued. 20. We are, therefore, in full agreement with the judgment of the learned Judge and accordingly dismiss the appeal without there being any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .