JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This appeal by the unsuccessful writ Petitioner is directed against the order dated 26.04.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (c) No. 493 (A.P.) of 2001, {W.P. (C) No. 4323 (Ghy.) of 2001} dismissing the writ petition filed by the Petitioner and refusing to interfere with the proceeding of the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short the DPC) held on 27.4.2001, whereby the DPC recommended the names of three non-Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (non APST) and twelve Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) Jr. Engineers for promotion to the posts of Asstt. Engineer against 15 vacancies; order dated 25.5.2001 passed by the Commissioner & Secretary (PWD) Itanagar, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh to the effect that the writ Petitioner will cease to function as adhoc Asstt. Engineer in P.W.D. with immediate effect and will continue to work as Jr. Engineer and also order dated 23.5.2001 by which 13 (thirteen) Jr. Engineers were promoted to the posts of Asstt. Engineer (Civil), pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC held on 27.4.2001. 2. Mr. C. Baruah, learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submits that there were altogether 71 (seventy one) numbers of vacant posts of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) available, which occurred in the year 1990 and therefore those posts, are to be filed up in accordance with the recruitment rules as well as reservation policy prevailing at that point of time. Mr. Baruah has further contended that at the relevant point of time the reservation policy requires filling up of the post in the ratio of 60% and 40% in respect of APST and non-APST candidate respectively and therefore, 40% of the said vacancies ought to have been filled up by non-APST candidate and had the Government filled up all the 71 vacancies by following the said ratio of reservation, the Petitioner would have come within the zone of consideration for the purpose of consideration for promotion against the quota meant for the non-APST candidate. According to the Mr. Baruah, the Government by deciding to fill up 15 (fifteen) vacancies and that too by following reservation policy adopted in the year 2001 has committed illegality thereby depriving the Petitioner from being considered for promotion though the vacancies occurred prior to formulation of such policy of reservation. Mr. Baruah, learned Sr. According to the Mr. Baruah, the Government by deciding to fill up 15 (fifteen) vacancies and that too by following reservation policy adopted in the year 2001 has committed illegality thereby depriving the Petitioner from being considered for promotion though the vacancies occurred prior to formulation of such policy of reservation. Mr. Baruah, learned Sr. Counsel therefore, submits that the proceeding of the DPC held on 27.4.2001 and the consequential order of promotion dated 23.5.2001 as well as the order dated 25.5.2001 by which the Appellant was informed that he caused to be the Asstt. Engineers are bad in law. The learned Sr. Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiyya v. J. Srinivasan Rao reported in 1983 (3) SCC 284 and Union of India and Ors. v. N.R. Bannerjee reported in 1997 (9) SCC 287 . 3. Mr. C.K. Sharma Baruah, learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the Respondents in support of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has submitted that there were only 15 (fifteen) vacancies available against the promotional quota of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) and all the vacancies were taken up for consideration by the DPC in its meeting dated 27.4.2001; pursuant to the direction issued vide order dated 24.5.2000 in W.P. (C) No. 693-695 of 1999 for selection of candidate on regular basis. Though those vacancies occurred after 1999, the cabinet took a decision to freeze all promotions for a period of one month or till an alternative to 40 point roster is found, with a view to ensure that the substantial promotional posts goes to APST candidates and therefore, the Government has decided not to fill up those vacancies till a decision is taken in that regard. Mr. Sharma Baruah, also submits that the Government on 1.2.2001 has decided to increase the reservation for APST from 60% to 80% in the said promotional quota and accordingly the DPC was held for filling up of all the fifteen posts and cases of all the eligible officers who came within the zone of consideration were considered for promotion against the quota meant for non-APST as well as APST candidates. The further submission of the learned Advocate General is that the Jr. Engineers, who are non-APST candidates up to Sl. The further submission of the learned Advocate General is that the Jr. Engineers, who are non-APST candidates up to Sl. No. 118 in the seniority list were considered for promotion and the Appellant's position in the seniority list being 182 he cannot come within the zone of consideration as the Government is required to consider the cases of 9 (nine) non-APST candidates for promotion against three posts available to them. According to the learned Advocate General there are 80 persons above the writ Petitioners in the rank of Jr. Engineer and therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim that he is to be promoted by ignoring the claim of all the other persons above him. Mr. Sharma Baruah, learned Advocate General further submits that the promotion of the Appellant being on adhoc basis the Government had no alternative but to revert him to the post of Jr. Engineer after the regular selection and appointment was made against the said post. The learned Advocate General, in support of his contention has placed reliance in Dr. K. Ramulu and Anr. v. Dr. S. Surya Prakash Rao and Ors. reported in 1997 (3) SCC 59 . 4. The Appellant though was placed at Sl. No. 182 in the seniority list of Jr. Engineers was promoted to the post of Asstt. Engineer on adhoc basis, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 18.9.98 in Writ Appeal No. 272 of 1998, as his juniors were appointed on adhoc basis. The fact remains that there are about 80 (eighty) Jr. Engineers above the Appellant in the gradation list and were awaiting for their chances for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade i.e. Asstt. Engineer (Civil). The Government of Arunachal Pradesh has taken up the process for regular selection for promotion to the said promotional post of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) in view of the direction issued by this Court on 24.5.2000 in W.P. (C) Nos. 693 of 1999, 694 of 1999 and 695 of 1999, wherein the adhocism adopted by the State Respondents was under challenge and the present Appellant was a Respondent, whose appointment on adhoc basis was also challenged in W.P. (c) No. 695 of 1999. The State cabinet on 28.12.2000, keeping in view the period of service rendered by the Jr. Engineers in the post of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis, has taken a decision to regularize such Jr. The State cabinet on 28.12.2000, keeping in view the period of service rendered by the Jr. Engineers in the post of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis, has taken a decision to regularize such Jr. Engineers in the posts of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) strictly in accordance with the seniority position in the gradation list. Accordingly the Jr. Engineers, who were placed at Sl. No. 61 to 100 in the gradation list, were regularized as Asstt. Engineers (Civil), who were appointed in the said posts on adhoc basis. The said decision of the Government has not been challenged by the Appellant in the present writ petition. 5. According to the State Respondents there were 15 (fifteen) vacancies of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) available against the promotional quota, which occurred after 1999. The Respondents with a view to streamline the reservation policy has decided not to fill up those posts till a final decision on such reservation policy is taken by the Government. After the new reservation policy of 2001, the percentage of reservation of the APST candidate was increased from 60% to 80% and that of the non-APST candidate reduced from 40% to 20%. After formulating such reservation policy the DPC was held on 27.4.2001 for consideration of all eligible Jr. Engineers for promotion to the said promotional posts of Asstt. Engineer (Civil). It appears from the proceeding of the said DPC that the Jr. Engineers whose seniority position was from Sl. No. 101 to 118 were considered for promotion against three posts of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) available for non-APST candidate as they came within the zone of consideration. The Appellant's case was not considered for promotion as he did not come within the zone of consideration, his seniority position in the gradation list being 182. The DPC recommended the names of three Jr. Engineers whose seniority position was at Sl. No. 101, 102 and 103 for promotion to the said promotional posts and accordingly order of promotion was issued by the authority on 23.5.2001, consequently by order dated 25.5.2001 the Petitioner who was serving as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis was reverted to the post of Jr. Engineer. Though the Appellant has challenged the DPC proceeding dated 27.4.2001 and the order of promotion of three non APST Jr. Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis was reverted to the post of Jr. Engineer. Though the Appellant has challenged the DPC proceeding dated 27.4.2001 and the order of promotion of three non APST Jr. Engineers dated 23.5.2001, the persons so promoted were not made parties either in the writ petition or in the appeal before this Court though the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the order of promotion. The writ petition in fact filed by the Petitioner challenging their selection and promotion without making them as party Respondents is not maintainable, as the said relief sought for cannot be granted without hearing those promotees. 6. The Appellant's case is that there were 71 (seventy one) vacancies of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) available against the promotional quota which arose prior to formulation of the new reservation policy and therefore, those posts are required to be filled up in terms of the earlier recruitment rules as well as the reservation policy which requires keeping 60% of the vacancies reserved for APST candidates and 40% for non-APST candidates. According to the Appellant the Government was therefore, required to fill up at least 28 posts of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) by the non-APST candidate. The Appellant has questioned the wisdom of the Government in not filling up the entire vacancies at a time and its decision to fill up 15 (fifteen) vacancies only. Even assuming that there were vacancies of Asstt. Engineer more than the vacancies filled up pursuant to the DPC meeting dated 27.4.2001 i.e. more 15 (fifteen), it is the prerogative of the Government to decide how much vacancies are required to be filled up keeping in view the exigencies of circumstances and administrative necessity. As because there were large number of vacancies available, no direction can be issued by the writ court directing the Government to fill up all the vacancies unless such decision to fill up a lesser number of vacancies suffers from malafide. The Appellant cannot as a matter of right claim that all such vacancies have to be filled up and cannot pray for a writ of mandamus directing Respondent authorities to fill up all such vacancies. The Appellant having no legal right to claim that all the vacancies are to be filled up by the Government, no writ petition claiming such relief is maintainable. Moreover, there is no allegation of malafide. The Appellant having no legal right to claim that all the vacancies are to be filled up by the Government, no writ petition claiming such relief is maintainable. Moreover, there is no allegation of malafide. It is a settled position of law that person can seek a writ of mandamus if he has a legal right in himself and the authority against whom such writ is prayed for has a legal duty to perform but has failed or neglected to perform the same. In the instant case as discussed above, the Appellant has no legal right to claim that all the vacancies are to be filled up by the authority. 7. The Respondents stand in the writ petition is that there were only 15 (fifteen) vacancies available against the promotional quota for promotion of Jr. Engineers to Asstt. Engineer (Civil) and out of which three vacancies were meant for non-APST candidates and remaining twelve for APST candidates, in view of the reservation policy of 2001. The case of the Appellant is that those vacancies arose prior to coming into force the Assistant Engineer (Civil) (Group-B) Recruitment Rules, 1991 (in short 1991 Rules) and when the Arunachal Pradesh (Public Works Department) Group-A and B post Recruitment Rules, 1982 was in force as well as prior to coming into force the new reservation policy 2001, therefore, according to the Appellant the said vacancies are to be filled in terms of the earlier recruitment rules as well as reservation policy as existed prior to 2001, contending thereby that 40% of the available vacancies are to be filled up by non-APST candidate and 60% by APST candidate. On the other hand the Respondents stand is that those vacancies occurred after 1999 and i.e. after coming into force 1991 Rules and though prior to the new reservation policy of 2001, the Government took a conscious decision not to fill up any vacancies till the Government takes a decision about reservation which was under consideration. According to the Respondents after formulation of the new reservation policy the vacancies were filled up by holding the DPC. 8. It appears from the circular dated 21.6.2000 issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. According to the Respondents after formulation of the new reservation policy the vacancies were filled up by holding the DPC. 8. It appears from the circular dated 21.6.2000 issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh that the State cabinet has taken a decision to freeze all promotion cases for a period of one month or till an alternative to 40 point roster is found i.e. for change of the reservation policy existed at that point of time. The Government therefore, took a conscious decision not to fill up any promotional posts pending formulation of a new reservation policy, which the Government is entitled to do. The said decision of the Government issued vide circular dated 21.6.2000 has also not been challenged by the Appellant. 9. In Dr. K. Ramulu (supra) the Apex Court has held that when the Government takes a conscious decision not to fill up any pending vacancy until the amendment of the recruitment rule, which process they had started on administrative grounds, which the Government is entitled to do, no direction can be issued by the court to fill up the vacancies existed prior to such amendment in terms of the unamended rules. In the instant case also it is the Appellant's contention that as the vacancies arose prior to formulation of the new reservation policy of 2001, the same are to be filled up by taking into account the reservation policy existed prior to 2001 i.e. 60% of the available vacancies are to be filled up by the APST and 40% by non-APST candidate. In view of the decision of the Government contained in the circular dated 21.6.2000, the said contention of the Appellant cannot be accepted. Moreover, even assuming that the 15 (fifteen) vacancies were to be filled up in terms of the reservation policy existed prior to 2001, 6 (six) posts were required to be filled in by non-APST candidate their quota being 40%, for which 24 (twenty four) Jr. Engineers, in accordance with their position in the gradation list, would have come within the zone of consideration for the purpose of consideration for promotion, in terms of the Government's policy. The Appellant's position in the gradation list being 182 and the Jr. Engineers whose name appear in the said seniority list from 101 onwards having not been promoted to the post of Asstt. The Appellant's position in the gradation list being 182 and the Jr. Engineers whose name appear in the said seniority list from 101 onwards having not been promoted to the post of Asstt. Engineer (Civil), the Appellant would not have come within the zone of consideration for the purpose of consideration for promotion to the said promotional post. Therefore, in any case the Appellant being not within the zone of consideration, could not be promoted against those posts. 10. In Y.V. Rangaiyya (supra) the Apex Court upon consideration of the relevant service rules which requires yearly preparation of list of approved candidates for promotion, and keeping in view the delay in preparation of such list as well as amendment of the rules in the meantime, has held that the vacancies occurred during the continuance of unamended rules have to be filled up in accordance with that rule only. The Apex Court in N.R. Bannerjee (supra) has on the basis of the facts of that case held that preparation of panel every year for promotion under the service Rule in question is mandatory and therefore, the zone of consideration and the ACRs to be taken into consideration have to be fixed on the basis of each panel year. In both those cases the question whether the vacancies occurred prior to amendment of the service Rule are to be filled up in terms of the unamended rules in spite of the Government conscious decision not to fill up those post till the amendment, did not arise. Therefore, in view of the decision in Dr. K. Ramulu and also in view of the facts of this case the ratio laid down in those cases are not applicable in the present case, as the Government had taken a conscious decision not to fill up any promotional posts till reformulation of reservation policy. 11. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge, has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant. Hence the present appeal has no merit and therefore dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed