Judgment 1. In both the writ petitions similar questions are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In CWJC No. 2014 of 2004, the petitioners are of general category. They have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint them on the post of Assistant in Bhagalpur Division in view of the panel prepared by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India. In CWJC No. 3761/2004 the sole petitioner who belongs to reserve category i.e. Scheduled Caste has approached this Court for the same relief as prayed in CWJC No. 2014/2004. 3. The facts relevant to the cases are that an advertisement was published on 15.11.1993, inviting applications for apointment on the post of Assistant in different divisions of Eastern Zone of the LIC of India including Bhagalpur Division. The total post of Assistant advertised was 121 out of which 71 were for general category and the rest were for the reserved categories. The petitioners filed application for their appointment pursuant to the advertisement, Annexure-1. They were allowed to appear in the written test/interview. A merit list of general category candidates was prepared on 29.2.1996, Annexure-2. The panel consists of 143 names. Similarly a merit list of reserved categories was separately prepared which is annexure-1 of CWJC No. 3761/04. From the merit list of general category appointment was offered to the candidates upto SI. No. 89 and from the merit list of reserved categories appointment was made upto SI. No. 36. The petitioners, in the circumstances mentioned above, have approached this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus for. their appointment. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in both the writ petitions wherein stand has been taken that the names of the petitioners exist in the respective merit lists and their cases shall be considered when the appointment shall be made on existing vacancy. In nutshell the respondents are not denying their selection but appointment will be made when the vacancy arises and need would be felt by the respondents. It has not been denied in the counter affidavit that some persons have been appointed by promotion rather stand of the respondents is that there is provision under the Regulation for appointment by promotion. In nutshell the respondents are not denying their selection but appointment will be made when the vacancy arises and need would be felt by the respondents. It has not been denied in the counter affidavit that some persons have been appointed by promotion rather stand of the respondents is that there is provision under the Regulation for appointment by promotion. The regulation is of the year 1961. Under Regulation 4 power has been provided to the Chairman to issue instruction. The instruction of 1993 has been issued by the Chairman, It is not a regulation but it has statutory force. It is also the stand of the respondents that merely existence of vacancy is not sufficient to make appointment unless the respondents/establishment feel need of appointment. It is also the stand of the respondents that the petitioners have no legal right to maintain the writ petitions as no person below the petitioners have been appointed in any of the two categories. 5. Counsel for the parties addressed the Court on the basis of their pleadings and on consideration of the submission and materials available on the record this much is obvious that an advertisement was published by the respondents on 15.11.93. The petitioners filed applications for their appointment on the post of Assistant in Bhagalpur Division. They appeared in the written test/interview and merit lists were prepared. In the merit list the names of petitioners of CWJC No. 2014 of 2004 are at SI. Nos. 134, 123, 136, 125, 112 and 110 respectively. In CWJC No. 3761/2004 the name of the petitioner in the merit list is at SI. No. 41. In the general category appointments have been offered to the candidates upto SI. No. 89, in reserved category appointments have been made upto -SI. No. 36 and no person below the petitioners in the merit lists has been appointed. 6. It is established rule of law for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus that unless the person establishes his legal right or exhibits his legal right no writ of mandamus can be issued. It is also well established rule of law that merely empanelment in the merit list does not create any legal right to the empanelists to be appointed unless it is shown that below them any appointment has been made. It is also well established rule of law that merely empanelment in the merit list does not create any legal right to the empanelists to be appointed unless it is shown that below them any appointment has been made. In this regard reference may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana V/s. Subhas Chandra Marwaha AIR 1973 SC 2216 , Shankarsan Das V/s. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1991 SC 1612 and Vinodan T. and Ors. V/s. University of Calicut and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 1885 . 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though there is nothing on the record to show that any person below the petitioners in merit list has been appointed, yet it has come on the record that some persons have been appointed by promotion, therefore, the action of the respondents is violative of the Rules and Article 14 of the Constitution of India in not appointing the petitioners. It appears from Regulation 7 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff Regulation) 1960 that there is provision for appointment by promotion. The procedure has also been prescribed for appointment by promotion. Neither the petitioners nor the respondents have denied the same. The question would be relevant for the consideration as to whether in such a situation when the Regulation provides for appointment by promotion can it be said that not appointing the persons empanelled would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? In my considered opinion, it cannot be. The appointment by promotion is a separate service/procedure and direct recruitment is a separate service/procedure as has been provided in the Regulations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the mandate of the Constitution. It has been admitted by the respondents that the names of the petitioners exist in the merit lists and their cases shall be considered for appointment if the occasion will come. It cannot be said that the respondents have kept the panel in dustbin because of the fact that no appointment after 1996 has been made after SI. No. 89 specially in view of the specific averment made in the counter affidavit that the panel exist and their case shall be considered if the vacancy/need would be felt by the Corporation for appointment. 8. No. 89 specially in view of the specific averment made in the counter affidavit that the panel exist and their case shall be considered if the vacancy/need would be felt by the Corporation for appointment. 8. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, specially in view of the categorical statement in the counter affidavit the writ petitions cannot be maintained as no person below the petitioners in the merit list has been appointed. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. 9. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondents in making appointment in future from the merit lists in accordance with law.