JUDGMENT 1. THE Petitioner No. 1 is a Registered Association under the name and Style of Makarda Health Sanitary Inspectors Welfare Association having its Registered Office at Makarda, within P. S. Pingla in the District of paschim Medinipur while the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 are the Executive Committee members of the said Association. 2. THEY have filed this Writ Application praying for the following relief :- "b) A Rule do issue upon the respondents to show cause why Writ order and/or directions in the nature of Mandamus should not issue directing them to forthwith initiate recruitment process for appointment of Sanitary Inspectors in the available sanctioned posts of Sanitary Inspectors lying vacant in primary Health Centres in different blocks and Municipalities in the District of Midnapore west as well as in other districts of West Bengal. " The Petitioners after entertaining a hope that the vacant posts in respect of Sanitary Inspectors under the Block Primary Health Centre controlled by the Respondent No. 1 would be filled up as they have concern for the general Public that in the absence of filling up of such posts the healthcare of the local people would suffer. 3. HAVING failed to achieve any success they approached the learned west Bengal Administrative Tribunal and O. A. No. 4556 of 2008 was registered on the basis of their Petition. 4. THE learned Tribunal by its Order No. 4 dated 19/11 /2008 came to the following finding :- ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now, having heard the parties and looking into the allegations made in the application, we are of the view that this application is not at all maintainable before us as the prayer which has been made before us is something like a Public Interest litigation. In such view of the fact, we do not entertain this application and the same is therefore, dismissed. " The aforesaid Order of the learned Tribunal has been brought before this Court at the instance of the Petitioners. 5. WE have been addressed at the Bar by Shri Kashi Kanta Moitra, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Shri Rajat Kr. Basu, Uttam Kr. Bhattacharya and Chittaranjan Bhuniya for the Petitioners and Shri Pratik Dhar, learned Junior Government Advocate with Ms. Jayeeta Chakraborty for the state. 6. 5. WE have been addressed at the Bar by Shri Kashi Kanta Moitra, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Shri Rajat Kr. Basu, Uttam Kr. Bhattacharya and Chittaranjan Bhuniya for the Petitioners and Shri Pratik Dhar, learned Junior Government Advocate with Ms. Jayeeta Chakraborty for the state. 6. SHRI Moitra, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Petitioners were qualified persons to perform para medical job. They had the requisite certificates to this effect. According to Shri Moitra posts of Sanitary Inspectors were lying vacant for a considerable period of time and as the Petitioners felt the non filling up of the said posts would be detrimental to the Public health, they approached the concerned Authorities but nothing was achieved. As such they filed the Application before the Tribunal. 7. SHRI Moitra, learned Senior Counsel was of the view that the learned tribunal at least could have asked the State why posts are not being filled up. 8. ACCORDING to Shri Moitra, the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioners as a Registered Association had a right to know the reason behind non filling up of the said posts. Shri Moitra submitted even their representation to the Respondent no. 1 remained unanswered. 9. ACCORDINGLY, Shri Moitra felt that at least the Tribunal, instead of dismissing the Application being a Public Interest Litigation, should have directed the Respondents to file their reply to the situation as pointed out on behalf of the Petitioners. 10. INVITING our attention to Section. 15 (1) (a) of the Administrative tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') Shri Moitra, the learned Senior Counsel submitted the Tribunal had the necessary Authority to pass appropriate Orders. Instead, it shirk its responsibility and dismissed the application in the manner noted hereinabove. Shri Moitra further submitted that this Court, at least should remand the Matter before the Tribunal for reconsideration of its Order in the light of the points, which he has placed before this Court. 11. Instead, it shirk its responsibility and dismissed the application in the manner noted hereinabove. Shri Moitra further submitted that this Court, at least should remand the Matter before the Tribunal for reconsideration of its Order in the light of the points, which he has placed before this Court. 11. AS a part of his submission Shri Moitra referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71 to illustrate his point that since the Petitioners nurtured a legitimate expectation that their demand would be fulfilled but the authorities concerned in an arbitrary exercise of Power did not either reply to the same or consider the said prayer-said action of the Authorities have become a subject of judicial review by this Court. 12. SHRI Moitra next referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors., (2008)10 SCC 1 which took into account the decision of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (supra) on the self-same point. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the decision of the supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 sc 806 on the applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. 13. SHRI Pratik Dhar, the learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that he did not agree with the last portion of the finding of the learned Tribunal that this should be treated as a Public Interest Litigation. He was of the view the said finding of the Tribunal was not in harmony with the legal position. 14. BUT he raised a very important question, which in our view, if accepted, would put to rest the entire controversy raised by Shri Moitra, the learned Senior Counsel. According to Shri Dhar, the learned Junior Government Advocate, a person, who is not in service cannot approach the Tribunal seeking necessary orders in respect of recruitment. Except a case of a post recruitment decision like ah Interview Matter-he was of the view that the Tribunal rightly refused the prayer of the Petitioners as they do not have any claim. 15. ELABORATING his submission Shri Dhar submitted that no decision with regard to the recruitment to the post as suggested on behalf of the petitioners has been taken by the Government. 15. ELABORATING his submission Shri Dhar submitted that no decision with regard to the recruitment to the post as suggested on behalf of the petitioners has been taken by the Government. In the event if any decision was taken by the Government, then the Tribunal could be approached with regard to a post decision for recruitment. 16. SHRI Dhar was of the view that there was no question of any legitimate expectation in the present case. He distinguished the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Food Corporation of lndia v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle feed Industries (supra) and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. (supra)relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners. According to Shri Dhar, even if the Petitioners have requisite diploma, they do not gather any Statutory right to get the job. 17. AS a part of his submission he referred to the decision of the supreme Court in T. N. Administrative Service Officers Association and Anr. v. Union, of India and Ors. reported in (2000)5 SCC 728 . Shri Dhar took us to paragraph 18 of the said decision and pinpointed the following portion of the paragraph which is quoted hererinbelow :- ". . . . . . It is a well-settled principle in service jurisprudence that even when there is a vacancy, the State is not bound to fill up such vacancy nor is there any corresponding right vested in an eligible employee to demand that such post be filled up. This is because the decision to fill up a vacancy or not vests with the employer who for good reasons, be it administrative, economical or policy, can decide not to fill up such post (s ). . . . . . . . . . . " 18. THEREAFTER Shri Dhar took us to the provisions of Section 15 (1) a)of the said Act. Pointing out to the word 'recruitment' in Clause (a) of sub-section 1 thereof, Shri Dhar submitted here the word recruitment would mean decision in respect of recruitment or intention to make recruitment. But as there is no decision taken by the concerned Respondents for recruitment; the petitioners did not have any cause of action before this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. But as there is no decision taken by the concerned Respondents for recruitment; the petitioners did not have any cause of action before this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, Shri Dhar wondered Section 19 of the said Act which enables a person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to approach it for redressal of his grievance. But in view of the fact that neither any decision was taken with regard to the recruitment nor the Petitioners had any say with regard to question of recruitment in the light of the decision of 7. N. Administrative Service Officers Association and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra). 19. ACCORDING to Shri Dhar their approach to the Tribunal being without jurisdiction, the Petitioners did not have any cause of action whatsoever in this application and the Petition was liable to be rejected. 20. IN the sideline Shri Dhar referred to the Calcutta Gazette of June 15, 1961. Shri Dhar submitted that in view of the said Gazette, which was communicated in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, no direct recruitment could be made. The posts were only required to be filled up by promotion. As such, the learned Junior Government Advocate summed up his argument in the light of his aforesaid submission to the effect that since the petitioners did not have any legal right to have any say with regard to the non filling up of the vacancies in respect of the Sanitary Inspectors-the Writ application is liable to be dismissed. We have heard the submissions of both Shri Moitra, the learned senior Counsel in support of the Application and Shri Dhar, learned Junior government Advocate for the State. 21. THE decisions of Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle feed Industries (supra) and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. (supra) cited by Shri Moitra, the learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention that the Petitioners had a legitimate expectation in view of the situation prevailing and due to non-fulfillment of vacant posts and no response to their representation, there exists arbitrariness on the part of the Respondents and the decision of the Supreme Court in T. N. Administrative Service Officers association and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) cited by Shri Dhar, the learned Junior Government Advocate that even there was a vacancy, State could not be dictated to fill up the same which rests with the employer who can decide whether or not to fill up such posts, have been very closely considered by us. 22. SINCE the Application is required to be decided on a pure question of Law, Affidavits were not gone into. Hence it would be deemed that all allegations made in the Application would be denied. After we have carefully heard the submissions of the learned Senior counsel in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (supra) and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. (supra) cited by him, we would at once come to the conclusion that there was no scope for entertaining any legitimate expectation on behalf of the Petitioners. Even though they have the requisite qualification, as rightly pointed out by the learned Junior Government Advocate-it would not automatically entitle them for the said job. 23. WE cannot more aptly describe the situation as shown by the learned Junior Government Advocate that in a given situation there may be qualified Medical Graduates but that would not mean that since they had the requisite qualification-all of them had to be engaged as Medical Officers. Perhaps the situation cannot be better described as have been shown by the learned Junior Government Advocate by way of referring to the instant illustration. 24. AS such, we feel that there is no strength in this regard in favour of the Petitioners. More so buttressed by the decision of the Supreme Court in T. N. Administrative Service Officers Association and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned Junior Government Advocate we would feel that there will be hardly any scope for this Court to interfere. We are in agreement with the submission of Shri Dhar, the teamed junior Government Advocate that interpretation of the word 'recruitment' in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the said Act should be understood in the context of a decision or an intention in respect of recruitment made by the Authorities. 25. We are in agreement with the submission of Shri Dhar, the teamed junior Government Advocate that interpretation of the word 'recruitment' in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the said Act should be understood in the context of a decision or an intention in respect of recruitment made by the Authorities. 25. IF we read the entire Scheme of Section 15 of the said Act, we would at once come to the conclusion that learned Junior Government advocate is quite right. 26. IF a purposive construction of the word 'recruitment' in Clause (a) of sub-section 1 of the above Section is made-it cannot be given any other meaning except recruitment as a fall out of a decision or an intention by the authorities for the purpose of such recruitment. In this context it would be profitable to refer to the Three Judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. etc. etc. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114 :1998 WBLR (SC) 405 where it has been held in Paragraph 18 ". . . . . In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen that the word 'order' has been defined in the explanation to sub-sec. (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in Section 3 (q) as service matters could be brought before the tribunal. If in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated. " 27. If in that context, Sections 14 and 15 are read, there is no doubt that a total stranger to the concerned service cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated. " 27. IN view of the fact that there has not been any decision taken by the concerned Authorities for making recruitment in the posts, which the petitioners felt, have been lying vacant ; we cannot feel persuaded with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel that the Matter should be referred to the learned Tribunal for reconsidering the said question by way of directing the State to file its reply as to why the posts are not being filled up. 28. WE are inclined to accept the aforesaid branch of submissions of shri Dhar, the learned Junior Government Advocate and would not be required to consider any other aspect of the Matter as in our view, the same is sufficient to dismiss the Writ Application. But since he has referred to The Calcutta Gazette in question prepared in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution of India we would advert to the same for whatever worth it is. 29. IT has been shown by Shri Dhar, learned Junior Government advocate that the posts of Sanitary Inspectors cannot be filled up directly but on the basis of 50 per cent quota by promotion from the non-medical staff. The claim of the Petitioners, even if otherwise maintainable ; cannot be accepted on this score alone. 30. BEFORE saying Omega, we would advert to the decision of Union of India and Ors. v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (supra). We are unable to apply the ratio of the said decision in the given fact situation of this present case. Accordingly, having found no merit in the Writ Application the same stands dismissed. No Order as to costs.