Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to fill up the post of Controller of Stores at Madras Port Trust on regular basis by considering the case of petitioner and grant him regular promotion with all service benefits, including monetary benefits and also award costs. 2. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India on being satisfied of the existing legal right, can only direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in accordance with law, but cannot issue direction to promote the person with benefits ect., as prayed for in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, that the petitioner is seeking only a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to fill up the post of Controller of Stores, which was lying vacant, when the eligible persons are available. 4. The petitioner joined the Port Trust on 31.08.1989 as Assistant Controller of Stores-Class I as a direct recruit through employment exchange. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Controller of Stores in the year 2000. The next channel of promotion from the post of Deputy Controller of Stores is to the post of Controller of Stores in the scale of Rs.17,500-22,300. The post is considered as the Head of the Stores Department and is a selection post. 5. Sections 23 and 24 of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, read as under: “23. Schedule of Board’s Staff – A Board shall, from time to time, prepare and sanction a Schedule of the employees of the Board whom it deems necessary and proper to maintain for the purposes of this Act and such Schedule shall indicate therein the designations and grades of employees and the salaries, fees and allowances which are proposed to be paid to the. Provided that the previous sanction of the Central Government shall be obtained for the inclusion in the said Schedule of those designations and grades of employees and the salaries, fees and allowances payable to them which the Central Government may, by order, specify, and where no such order is made, of such posts (including the salaries and allowances attached thereto) which are required to be created by the Central Government, or for the creation of which the previous sanction of the Central Government is required, under this Act. 24. Power to make appointments-(1) Subject to the provisions of the Schedule for the time being in force sanctioned by a Board under section 23, the power of appointing any person to any post, whether temporary or permanent shall- (a) In the case of a post- (i) The incumbent of which is to be regarded as the Head of a department; or (ii) to which such incumbent is to be appointed; or (iii) the maximum of the pay scale of which (exclusive of allowances) exceeds such amount as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix; be exercisable by the Central Government after consultation with the Chairman; (b) in the case of any other post, be exercisable by the Chairman or by such authority as may be prescribed by regulations. Provided that no person shall be appointed as a pilot at any port, who is not for the time being authorised by the Central Government under the provisions of the Indian Ports Act to pilot vessels at that or any other port. (2) The Central Government may, by order, specify any post the incumbent of which shall, for the purposes of this Act, be regarded as the Head of a department.” 6. According to Chennai Port Trust Employees’ (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2008, the post of Controller of Stores can be filled up by way of promotion from the post of Deputy Controller of Stores with five years regular service or by transfer on deputation of persons holding analogous posts in Government or other bodies. 7. According to Chennai Port Trust Employees’ (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2008, the post of Controller of Stores can be filled up by way of promotion from the post of Deputy Controller of Stores with five years regular service or by transfer on deputation of persons holding analogous posts in Government or other bodies. 7. The case of petitioner is that, he is fully eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Controller of Stores, which fell vacant in March, 2005 and at that time, the petitioner had already put in 10 years and 10 months of regular service as Deputy Controller of Stores and furthermore the petitioner was given the charge of Controller of Stores on 11.04.2005. 8. While the petitioner was holding the charge of Controller of Stores, the post was notified for being filled up on 20.06.2005. The petitioner along with other eligible persons applied for the post. But the respondents did not proceed further with the process of filling up of post. The petitioner therefore continued to discharge the duties of Controller of Stores under adhoc arrangement. 9. It may also be mentioned, that the petitioner was also granted pay attached to the post of Controller of Stores, which was subsequently, ordered to be recovered on the basis of audit objection. The action was challenged by petitioner by filing W.P.No.2528 of 2008 in which stay was granted and finally writ stands allowed by this Court. 10. The petitioner was not considered for Controller of Stores' post on regular basis, on the ground, that the respondents were to restructure the cadres in various departments based on the report of pay revision committee during 2004. It is submitted, that the respondents are not filling up the sensitive post and thereby acting against the public interest, therefore, action of the respondents is totally arbitrary. 11. It is also pleaded case of petitioner, that though all other posts of Head of Department have been filled up, only the Controller of Stores has not been filled up, which fell vacant in the year 2005. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that action of the respondents is totally arbitrary, thus, is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which entitles the petitioner to the writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to fill up the post of Controller of Stores by promoting the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that action of the respondents is totally arbitrary, thus, is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which entitles the petitioner to the writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to fill up the post of Controller of Stores by promoting the petitioner. 13. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that as the post is in existence and the rules governing the promotion are also in force, therefore respondents cannot deprive the benefit of consideration to eligible candidates. It is contended, that it is a fit case where this Court can issue a writ in nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to fill up the vacancy and act fairly. 14. The writ petition is opposed by filing counter, wherein stand of the Chennai Port Trust is, that in the cadre restructuring report, Stores Department has been transferred as Material Management division to Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Department, and that the post of Controller of Stores is proposed to be discontinued. The proposal in this regard stands approved by the Board of Trustees of Chennai Port Trust as also by the Ministry and notified in the gazette notification dated 07.01.2009. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents vehemently contends, that the petitioner has no legal right to seek writ in the nature of Mandamus, as the post of Controller of Stores is not available after restructuring of cadre, therefore, the petitioner has no right to be considered as the post has ceased to exist. 16. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. Once it is not disputed, that the process of restructuring has started, prior to the post fell vacant, and under the proposal, the post of Controller of Stores is not available, the petitioner cannot seek either promotion or right to be considered against the post, merely because, he has been given adhoc promotion to look after the work of Controller of Stores, pending finalization of restructuring of stores Cadre. 17. The action of respondents in not promoting the petitioner on regular basis therefore by no stretch of imagination can be said to be arbitrary, so as to entitle this Court to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus to fill up the post by considering the case of petitioner along with other eligible persons. 18. 17. The action of respondents in not promoting the petitioner on regular basis therefore by no stretch of imagination can be said to be arbitrary, so as to entitle this Court to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus to fill up the post by considering the case of petitioner along with other eligible persons. 18. It is the case where representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected by informing the petitioner that the post of Controller of Stores is not recommended in the restructuring cadre. The petitioner, therefore, has no right to be considered for the post. 19. The petitioner for the reasons best known, has not challenged the order, rejecting his representation and has only prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus for considering him for promotion to the post, which is not in existence. 20. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.