Judgment :- Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 4 and 6. Ms.E.Ranganayaki, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the fifth respondent. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant in a temporary post on contract basis on a consolidated pay of a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. Subsequently, on a demand made by similarly placed persons, the Commissioner of Technical Education, in consultation with the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, conducted a special test in 2007 in respect of such persons, who are appointed on contract basis. The petitioner had passed the said test and on the basis of the selected list issued by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, the Commissioner of Technical Education, by an order dated 12.1.2010 gave appropriate posting orders to those, who belong to Ministerial Service under the Commissioner of Technical Education. The petitioners name finds a place in S.No.12. The petitioner, who belongs to Erode, was directed to be posted in the posting order at Government Polytechnic, Uthagamandalam. The petitioner has come forward to challenge that order stating that though he is not aggrieved about regularization and bringing him under the time scale of pay, he ought to have been retained at Chennimalai. The petitioner states that he should be permitted to be retained in the same station since there are vacancies available. 3. According to the petitioner, when there are vacancies available, it is not known as to why he should be posted to some other district and he could be retained in the same district. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order dated 5.11.2009 in WP.(MD).Nos.4461 of 2009 etc cases passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and in that case, it was held that the persons may be posted in the same department if there are clear vacancies available. A perusal of the said order shows that there is no reference to any Rules and it is merely in the nature of advisory. The petitioner was an ad hoc appointee and due to policy decision of the State Government, a special examination was conducted in respect of several similarly placed persons. Therefore, the petitioner must thank that he has got a regularization and time scale of pay by the order, which is impugned in this writ petition. 4. The petitioner was an ad hoc appointee and due to policy decision of the State Government, a special examination was conducted in respect of several similarly placed persons. Therefore, the petitioner must thank that he has got a regularization and time scale of pay by the order, which is impugned in this writ petition. 4. On the question of posting, it is for the Commissioner of Technical Education to post appropriate persons in the appropriate place. It must be noted that the Ministerial Service is a State Level Service and the petitioner, being a Junior Assistant, is bound to serve wherever he is posted. In the absence of any legal or enforceable right, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed.