JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. Four Judicial Officers of the State of Meghalaya by the present writ petition have challenged the notification dated 22nd August 2000, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Law (A) Department, appointing Sri Wanlura Diengdoh, an advocate, as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shillong in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 233(1) of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts in brief is that an advertisement dated 13th July 1999 was issued by the Registrar General of the High Court inviting application from the practicing advocates for recruitment to the post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shillong (Grade-I Judicial post of State of Maghalaya) having minimum seven years standing practice at the bar and maximum age limit of 45 years as on 1st June 1999, pursuant to which five candidates including the Respondent No. 3 applied or selection against the said post. On the basis of the selection made, a select list was thereafter prepared selecting three candidates for appointment against the said post wherein one Sudip Ranjan Sen, was placed at Sl. No. 1 and the Respondent No. 3 at Sl. No. 2. Pursuant to such selection the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, vide order dated 6th July 2000. Another post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge was created by the Government of Meghalaya vide order dated 18th July 2000, in view of the request made by the High Court contained in the communication dated 15th May 1999 issued by the Registrar General requesting the Government of Meghalaya to increase the strength of the Cadre of Grade-I Judicial Officer of the state from 3 (three) to 5 (five) and also to accord necessary sanction for creation of said posts along with supporting staff as proposed. Against the said newly created post, the Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, by the Government of Meghalaya vide notification dated 22nd August 2000 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by the Article 233(1) of the Constitution of India on the basis of his position in the merit list prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 13th July 1999. The present Petitioners are challenging the said order of appointment of the Respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition. 3. We have heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Sr. The present Petitioners are challenging the said order of appointment of the Respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition. 3. We have heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Sr. counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. A. Sharma, learned Advocate General, Meghalaya, Mr. B.C. Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the Registrar General of the High Court and Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the advertisement issued by the authority on 13th July 1999 being for a single post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, the select list prepared pursuant to the selection made in terms of the said advertisement, gets exhausted as soon as the person whose name appeared at Sl. No. 1 of the select list was appointed. According to Mr. Misra, no appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge can be made against the vacancies created by the Government on 18th July 2000 from out of the candidates whose name appears in the said select list. In the instant case as the Respondent No. 3 was appointed vide notification dated 22nd August 2000 as Addl. District and Sessions Judge against the newly created post and pursuant to the selection made in terms of the advertisement dated 13th July 1999, the appointment of the Respondent No. 3 is illegal and contrary to law and therefore, the said appointment is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the action of the Government in filling up of the newly created post by the Respondent No. 3 amounts to denial of opportunity to the Petitioners to apply for the said post for selection. Countering the contention of the Respondents regarding the locus standi of the Petitioner to challenge such appointment of the Respondent No. 3, Mr. Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the Petitioners are the persons aggrieved by the action of the Respondents authorities in making such appointment and therefore, the writ petition challenging such appointment at the instance of the Petitioners is maintainable. Mr. Misra in support of his contention has placed reliance on State of Bihar and Anr.; reported in 1994 (Supp) 3 SCC 308, Madan Lal and Ors. Mr. Misra in support of his contention has placed reliance on State of Bihar and Anr.; reported in 1994 (Supp) 3 SCC 308, Madan Lal and Ors. v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.; reported in 1995 (3) SCC 486 , Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna and Ors.; reported in 2005 (4) SCC 154 . 5. The learned Advocate General, Meghalaya, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that as the advertisement as well as the newly created post is meant for the direct recruitee from amongst the Advocates, the Petitioners who are judicial officers they cannot claim appointment against the said post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, which is available for recruitment from the bar only and therefore, the present writ petition filed by the Petitioners challenging the appointment of the Respondent No. 3, who was appointed against the said post on the basis of the selection made pursuant to the advertisement dated 13th July 1999, is not maintainable and the writ court will definitely not set aside the order of appointment of the Respondent No. 3 in a writ petition where Petitioners have no legal right to claim appointment and where no relief can be granted to them. The further submission of the learned Advocate General is that though the Government vide order dated 18th July 2000 finally created another post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, the same was in fact created pursuant to the request made by the High Court communicated to the Government vide communication dated 15th May 1999 i.e. prior to issuance of advertisement dated 13th July 1999, therefore, no illegality has been committed in appointing the Respondent No. 3 pursuant to the selection made in terms of the said advertisement as the anticipated vacancies can be filled up in terms of the same selection. 6. Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 supporting the argument of the learned Advocate General and referring to the communication dated 15th May 1999 issued by the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court to the Government of Meghalaya has submitted that the High Court requested the Government for creation of two more posts of Grade-I Judicial Officers and pursuant to such request only one further post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge was created vide order dated 18th July 2000 and the advertisement issued by the Registrar General being on 13th July 1999 i.e. after the issuance of communication dated 15th May 1999, the said post created on 18th July 2000 being an anticipated vacancy can be filled up by the candidate selected in terms of the said advertisement dated 13th July 1999. Mr. Dutta has further submitted that as the Petitioners never applied for the said post pursuant to the advertisement dated 13th July 1999 and as the post, which has been filled up by appointing the Respondent No. 3 is meant for direct recruitment from the advocates having 7(seven) years of standing practice and not promotional post, the Petitioners who are judicial officers cannot claim appointment against the said post and therefore, the writ court being a court of equity and having exercise the discretionary jurisdiction, may not interfere with the order of appointment of the Respondent No. 3 when no relief can be granted to the Petitioners. 7. The order of appointment of a person against a post can be challenged by a person who can claim appointment against the said post. A person who is not qualified to be appointed and who did not apply for the post cannot challenge the appointment of any person against the said post. The person who challenges an order of appointment of another person by filing a writ petition must therefore be a "person aggrieved" by such appointment. 8. A person can be said to be a "person aggrieved" by the action of the Government in appointing another person in a post, if that action deprives that other person from his right to be considered for appointment against the said post. The Petitioners to maintain a writ petition challenging an appointment of another person must show what legal right of their has been violated by the action of the Respondent in making such appointment. A "person aggrieved" is a person who has a genuine grievance against an order, which has prejudicially affected his rights and interest. The Petitioners to maintain a writ petition challenging an appointment of another person must show what legal right of their has been violated by the action of the Respondent in making such appointment. A "person aggrieved" is a person who has a genuine grievance against an order, which has prejudicially affected his rights and interest. A person who is not directly and immediately affected by an order of appointment but remotely affected or his chances of promotion in future has been affected by such appointment cannot maintain a writ petition challenging the appointment of another person, as such person cannot be termed as "person aggrieved" to maintain such writ petition. The jurisdiction of the writ court being equitable and discretionary it will not issue any writ quashing the appointment of a person on the basis of the writ petition filed by a person, in whose favour no relief can be granted. 9. In the instant case the Petitioners, who are judicial officers in the State of Meghalaya, have challenged the order of appointment of the Respondent No. 3 dated 22nd August 2000 appointing him as Addl. District and Sessions Judge against the post created after the selection of candidate to the post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge was made pursuant to an advertisement dated 13th July 1999 and which post was meant to be filled up by the direct recruitees i.e. recruitment from amongst the advocates having requisite qualification. It appears from the statements made in the writ petition more particularly the statements made in paragraph 13 that the grievance of the Petitioners, is against the decision of the Government to fill up the post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge by direct recruitment from amongst members of the bar blocking the promotional chances of the serving judicial officers. Admittedly no service rule has been framed in respect of the judicial officers in the State of Meghalaya till date. The post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge in Meghalaya is till now not the promotional post from the Chief Judicial or other Judicial Magistrate, which post are being held by the present Petitioners. Admittedly no service rule has been framed in respect of the judicial officers in the State of Meghalaya till date. The post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge in Meghalaya is till now not the promotional post from the Chief Judicial or other Judicial Magistrate, which post are being held by the present Petitioners. Moreover, the Petitioners have made a statement in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that though they filed a representation before the competent authority for allowing them to compete in the examination held for the purpose of selection of candidates for filling up the post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge in terms of the advertisement dated 13th July 1999, no such permission was accorded and they were even not allowed to compete for selection pursuant to such advertisement. The Petitioners never any point of time have challenged the said action of the authority in refusing to grant permission to apply and appear for selection pursuant to the said advertisement. The fact remains that the Petitioners were not the candidates pursuant to the advertisement dated 13th July 1999 and the posts of Addl. District and Sessions Judge filled up by those selected candidates are meant for direct recruitment and not promotional post and to be filled up from amongst the advocates having the requisite qualification. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Petitioners cannot be termed as "person aggrieved" by the action of the Respondents in appointing the Respondent No. 3 as Addl. District and Sessions Judge by direct recruitment on the basis of the selection made pursuant to the advertisement dated 13th July 1999, wherein the Petitioners were not candidates for such selection, and therefore, no relief can also be granted in the writ petition filed by them. The writ court as discussed above will not set aside an order of appointment, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, at the instance of a person who is not the person aggrieved and in whose favour no relief can be granted, by setting aside such appointment. 11. The writ court as discussed above will not set aside an order of appointment, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, at the instance of a person who is not the person aggrieved and in whose favour no relief can be granted, by setting aside such appointment. 11. From the aforesaid discussions, it is therefore, evident that the Petitioners cannot be granted any relief as they were not candidates pursuant to the advertisement dated 13th July 1999 and the post filled up by appointing the Respondent No. 3 is not the promotional post and hence we are not inclined to interfere with the order of appointment of the Respondents No. 3 on the basis of the writ petition filed by the Petitioners. 12. In view of our aforesaid findings, we are not entering into the merit of the case and therefore the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are not discussed. The question i.e. whether the appointment of the Respondent No. 3 is legally valid or not and whether the post which was filled up by appointing the Respondent No. 3 was an anticipated vacancy and could be filled up pursuant to the selection made in terms of the advertisement dated 13th July 1999, have also, therefore, not been gone into. 13. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. 14. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case we do not make any order as to cost. Petition dismissed