JUDGEMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner has obtained 3 years diploma in Civil Engineering from Maharashtra Technical Education Board, Bombay in the year 1991. Thereafter he got his name registered with Employment Exchange, Nurpur for seeking appointment on batch-wise basis. Respondent-State has framed the rules for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Annexure P-3). According to these rules 25% posts are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment either on regular or contract basis, 25% recruitment is to be made on batch-wise basis and 50% posts are filled up by promotion. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the respondent-State had only initiated process for filling up 25% posts by way of direct recruitment, for which purpose written test was held on 18.11.2010 and the candidates were interviewed between 6.1.2011 to 11.1.2011 and the final result was declared by respondent No.3 on 17.1.2011 without considering him for making appointment on batch-wise basis. 3. Mr. V.D. Khidta, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the action of the respondent- State of filling up only 25% posts by way of direct recruitment and not taking steps for filling up the posts on batch-wise basis is illegal, wrong, arbitrary, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that it is a policy matter whether the posts are to be filled up by any of the modes prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, taking into consideration the exigencies and larger public interest. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner belongs to 1991 batch. Respondent- State, as noticed above, has sent requisition to respondent No.3 for filling up the posts of Junior Engineer by way of direct recruitment. Respondent No.3 has conducted the written test and interviewed the candidates between 6.1.2011 to 11.1.2011 and the result was declared on 17.1.2011. The Court is of the view that it is for the employer to decide by which mode primarily the posts are to be filled up, being a policy matter. The judicial review in these matters is very limited. It is only if the decision had been taken arbitrarily or unreasonably, the Court can interfere in these matters. The Court is of the view that it is for the employer to decide by which mode primarily the posts are to be filled up, being a policy matter. The judicial review in these matters is very limited. It is only if the decision had been taken arbitrarily or unreasonably, the Court can interfere in these matters. The petitioner has only the right to be considered for the post of Junior Engineer on batch-wise basis as and when the respondent-State decides to fill up the posts on batch-wise basis. This Court cannot issue the mandamus to the respondents to have simultaneously started the process of filling up the posts on batch-wise basis. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the financial implication has also to be seen by the State when the decision is taken to fill up the posts either by way of direct recruitment on batch-wise basis or by way of promotion. The decision of the State to fill up the posts by way of direct recruitment could be due to the reason that the candidates who have recently passed out were well conversant with latest technology since they were to be appointed as Junior Engineers. The petitioner could also participate when the posts were advertised for filling up the same by way of direct recruitment. The direct recruitment is based on wider zone of consideration and appointment to be made on batch-wise basis is restricted to a particular batch. When the appointment is made on batch-wise basis, it is restricted to a particular batch and even a candidate who is not a very meritorious or brilliant, will be given public employment only for the reason that he belongs to a particular batch. In other words, the appointments to be made on batch-wise basis are ante merit vis-à-vis those candidates who are to be recruited by way of direct recruitment. It is for the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner as and when it decides to fill up the posts on batch-wise basis in the larger public interest. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. ****************************************************************************