JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No. 4 to implement the resolution No. 8 dated 22nd April, 1999 (Annexure P/6) passed by the General Administration Standing Committee (for short `the Committee') of the District Panchayat, Durg, and to grant two promotional opportunities to the petitioners, who are the Angan Badi workers. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner No. 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were appointed as Angan Badi Workers by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Daundi, District Durg, vide order dated 31st July, 1984 (Annexure P/1) and the petitioner No. 8, 9 and 10 were appointed by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Saja, District Durg, vide order dated 2nd November, 1983 (Annexure P/2). Similarly, the petitioner No. 2, 3 and 11 were also appointed on the post of Angan Badi Worker. The Additional Director, Directorate, Women and Child Welfare, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, instructed the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Durg, vide communication dated 30th June, 1998 (Annexure P/3) that the reservation in case of appointment of the Supervisors from Angan Badi Workers should be done at Division level. Presently, 50% of the vacant seats in the District should be done in accordance with the reservation roster. A seniority list (Annexure P/4) of all the Angan Badi Workers under the District Panchayat, Durg, was prepared and published. Thereafter, note-sheet No. 33 (Annexure P/5) was drawn wherein the name of the petitioners find place who were proposed to be promoted on the post of Supervisors. A meeting of the Committee of District Panchayat, Durg was held on 22nd April, 1999 (Annexure P/6). In the resolution No. 8 of the agenda, it was resolved to promote 12 Angan Badi Workers listed in the note- sheet (Annexure P/5) on the post of Supervisors. All the petitioners, i.e. petitioner No. 1 to 11 found place at serial no. 10, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 9, 2, 3, 4 and 1 respectively. 3. Shri V.G.Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the name of the petitioners have been approved by the Committee of the District Panchayat, Durg for appointment and as such, the petitioners have acquired right to appointment on the post of Supervisors. 10, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 9, 2, 3, 4 and 1 respectively. 3. Shri V.G.Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the name of the petitioners have been approved by the Committee of the District Panchayat, Durg for appointment and as such, the petitioners have acquired right to appointment on the post of Supervisors. Shri Tamaskar would further contend that in similar circumstances, the District Panchayat, Women and Child Development, Khargon, (Madhya Pradesh) have appointed Angan Badi Workers as Class III Supervisors (Annexure P/7). Non-promotion of the petitioners, despite resolution passed by the District Panchayat, Durg, is arbitrary and unreasonable. Thus, this petition seeking direction to the respondent No. 4 to implement the recommendation of the Committee dated 22nd April, 1999 (Annexure P/6). It was further urged that a direction may be issued to the Government to provide for minimum two promotions to the Angan Badi Workers. In support of his contention, Shri Tamaskar would rely on a decision in Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and Others1. 4. Shri Alok Bakshi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 would submit that the post of Supervisors in District Panchayats have been declared as dying cadre on 13th May, 1999 (Annexure R/1) before creation of the present State of Chhattisgarh and as such, no appointment could be made thereafter. Even otherwise, the petitioners have no legal right to be appointed on the post and the recommendation made by the Committee is advisory in nature and is not binding upon the appointing authority. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Indisputably, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Angan Badi Workers by respective orders, as aforestated (Annexure P/1 and P/2), on temporary basis. The order dated 30th June, 1998 (Annexure P/3) does not provide for promotion of the Angan Badi Workers on the post of Supervisors but for having reservation at division level in case of promotion from Angan Badi Workers on the post of Supervisors. It is also not in dispute that the Committee of District Panchayat, Durg in its meeting dated 22nd April, 1999, approved the name of the petitioners' alongwith others for appointment on the post of Supervisors. It is also not in dispute that the Committee of District Panchayat, Durg in its meeting dated 22nd April, 1999, approved the name of the petitioners' alongwith others for appointment on the post of Supervisors. Thereafter, on 13th May, 1999 (Annexure R/1), the post of Supervisors came to an end as the same was declared as dying cadre and as such, no appointment could be made. 7. Reliance of the petitioners that in District Panchayat, Khargon, Angan Badi Workers were appointed as class III Supervisors on 15th June, 1999 may not be relevant as it depends on the Chief Executive Officer. If the Chief Executive Officer is not aware of the memo dated 13th May, 1999 and has made certain appointments, the present petitioners cannot claim appointment on that basis. The contention of Shri Tamaskar that the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary and unreasonable is noted to be rejected. Even otherwise, the petitioners have not acquired any right to appointment as the appointment was to be made by the Chief Executive Officer of the District Panchayat, Durg on the recommendation made by the Committee of the District Panchayat, Durg. It is for the Chief Executive Officer to examine all the facts of the case and the recommendations and pass appropriate orders for appointment. 8. In respect of the equality under provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court observed that "it is now well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive effect. Equality clause cannot apply in a case where it arises out of illegality". (See: General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi & Others2). 9. Rule 3(f) and (i) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Powers and Functions of Chief Executive Officer) Rules, 1995 (for short, `the Rules, 1995'), reads as under: "3. Equality clause cannot apply in a case where it arises out of illegality". (See: General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi & Others2). 9. Rule 3(f) and (i) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Powers and Functions of Chief Executive Officer) Rules, 1995 (for short, `the Rules, 1995'), reads as under: "3. Save as otherwise expressly provided by or under the Act, the executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act shall vest in the Chief Executive Officer, who- (f) shall take action to implement the resolutions of the Panchayat; (i) shall report within three days from the date of meeting of Panchayat or Standing Committee all such cases to the prescribed officer where his opinion any act or execution of any order or resolution of Panchayat or of the President or the Chairperson of any standing committee is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder or any directions or instructions issued by the State Government under the Act." 10. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 prescribes that "the Chief Executive Officer shall also exercise all such powers and perform such other functions and duties as may be delegated to him by Panchayat or assigned by the State Government. 11. Rule 6 of the Rules, 1995 provides that "any order of the Panchayat shall only be valid when it is issued under the seal and signature of the Chief Executive Officer". 12. On perusal of Rule 3(f), Rule 5 and 6 of the Rules, 1995 it is clear that the Chief Executive Officer shall examine whether a recommendation is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder or under the directions or instructions issued by the State Government under the Act. In the facts of the case, the instructions dated 13th May, 1999 which was provided not to pass the order of appointment and thereafter post elsewhere as the post of Supervisor and Assistant Women and Child Welfare Extension Officer, were declared as dying cadre. 13. In Sethi Auto Service Station & another v. Delhi Development Authority & Others3, while considering the effect of the recommendation, the Supreme Court observed that "we find it difficult to hold that the recommendation of the Technical Committee of DDA fructified into an order conferring legal right upon the appellants". 14. 13. In Sethi Auto Service Station & another v. Delhi Development Authority & Others3, while considering the effect of the recommendation, the Supreme Court observed that "we find it difficult to hold that the recommendation of the Technical Committee of DDA fructified into an order conferring legal right upon the appellants". 14. In Union of India v. Arun Jyoti Kundu & Others4, the Supreme Court observed as under: "16.unless the Government has accepted the recommendation to merge the cadres, the court cannot proceed on the basis of the recommendation alone or to direct the Government to accept the recommendation." 15. In the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India5, it was held by the Supreme Court that "it is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are not found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied." 16. It was subsequently followed in Ludhiana Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and others6 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that "even otherwise, it is well settled by now that a person whose name is said to find place in a select panel has no vested right to get appointed to the post in spite of vacancies existing." 17. Further, in Union of India and others v. Kali Dass Batish and another7 the Supreme Court held that "mere inclusion of a candidate's name in the selection list gave him no right, and if there was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of a non-existing right." 18. This Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Dewangan v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others8 held that "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Assistant pursuant to his selection" and that "no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process.". 19. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand wherein the name of the petitioners were recommended by the Committee of the District Panchayat, Durg, thereafter no appointment could be made on account of the memo dated 13th May, 1999 (Annexure R/1), there is no infirmity or illegality. 20. 19. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand wherein the name of the petitioners were recommended by the Committee of the District Panchayat, Durg, thereafter no appointment could be made on account of the memo dated 13th May, 1999 (Annexure R/1), there is no infirmity or illegality. 20. Reliance of the petitioners in Raghunath Prasad Singh (supra), that the State Government may be directed to grant at least two opportunities for promotion to the Angan Bandi Workers, the State Government may consider the prayer of the petitioners in accordance with the observations made by the Supreme Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh (supra), as it is a matter of policy decision. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the State Government to take policy decision wherein the financial implication is involved and the State has to decide about the service conditions of the Angan Badi Workers. 21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.