Judgment : The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to create a promotional post with higher pay for the petitioner Secondary Grade Teachers working in High/Higher Secondary School) on par with the Elementary School Headmaster with effect from 6. 1988 onwards (I.e.) from the dated on which the higher pay scale was given to the Elementary School Headmaster by way of awarding Selection/Special Grade by counting their total secondary grade service in the promotional post and direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200 with effect from 6. 1988 by following G.O. Ms. No. 216 Finance (Pay cell) Department dated 23. 1993 and award the consequential arrears of pay with effect, from 6. 1988 onwards and consequential pension, the Court cannot issue any direction to the respondents to create any post in the cadre stated above, and that too, from 6. 1988 onwards. 2. Creation and abolition of the post are purely prerogative of the Government and Courts cannot issue any directions to the respondents to create any post in the cadre, as sought for by the petitioner. In this context, it is worthwhile to extract few judgments of the Supreme Court on the power of Courts to interfere with the domain of the executive. 3. In P.U. Joshi and Others v. Accountant General Ahmedabad and Others AIR 2003 SC 2156 : (2003) 2 SCC 632 at paragraph 10 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows: “Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to the fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the constitution of India and it is not for the statutory Tribunals at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment of eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend any vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criterial and other conditions of service and alter or amend any vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criterial and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” 4. The above legal position has been affirmed in a recent judgment in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408 : (2007) 7 MLJ 916: 2006-1-LLJ-580 at paragraph 37 at p. 927 of MLJ. “37. that creation and abolition of posts and regularization are purely executive functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General AIR 2003 SC 2156 : (2003) 2 SCC 632. Hence, the Court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we cannot issue any direction to absorb the respondents or continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive functions. This Court cannot arrogate itself the powers of the executive or legislative. There is broad separation of powers under the constitution, and the judiciary, too, must know its limits.” 5. In view of the settled legal position, the reliefs sought for this writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.