JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, A.C.J. 1. This writ application has been filed challenging the Notification dated 27.10.2011 in Annexure-A/5 issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms(Personnel Division), Govt. of Manipur providing therein that all posts of Inspector of Taxes shall be filled up 100% by direct recruitment. 2. The case of the petitioners is that some of them are serving as L.D.Cs. and some of them are now serving as U.D.Cs. after being promoted from the post of L.D.C. The Recruitment Rules for filling up the post of Inspector of Taxes in the Department of Taxes, Manipur were published in the Gazette on 15.4.1987 wherein it was provided that 50% of the cadre posts shall be filled up by way of promotion from among the U.D.Cs. of the Taxation Department having at least 5 years regular service in the grade and on completion of Accounts Training conducted by the Accountant General, Manipur. The grievance in the writ application is that in Annexure-A/5 dated 27.10.2011 this promotional avenue available to the U.D.Cs. has been taken away and all the cadre post of Inspector of Taxes shall be filled up by direct recruitment. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents- 1 to 4 and it is stated in the counter affidavit that the State Government by order dated 3.6.2011 constituted a Central Committee for re-examination of the provisions of the then existing Rules regarding recruitment of Inspector of Taxes and restructuring of the hierarchy in each Department to avoid multiple channels of promotion. The said Committee considered case of the Inspector of Taxes and recommended to prescribe Pay-Band 9300 - 34800 + 4200 to maintain parity with other Departments subject to amendment of Recruitment Rules by deleting the provision of promotion from U.D.C. to the post of Inspector of Taxes. The said recommendation of the Central Committee was duly approved by the State Cabinet and accordingly the impugned Notification was issued. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that so far as the U.D.Cs. are concerned they have one other channel of promotion and they can be promoted as Head Clerk and subsequent promotional posts. Since two channels of promotions are available to the U.D.Cs. in the Taxation Department, the Central Committee considered it necessary to confine it to one channel for the purpose of restructuring the Department. 4. Mr. are concerned they have one other channel of promotion and they can be promoted as Head Clerk and subsequent promotional posts. Since two channels of promotions are available to the U.D.Cs. in the Taxation Department, the Central Committee considered it necessary to confine it to one channel for the purpose of restructuring the Department. 4. Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though there were two channels of promotions in the Taxation Department for the U.D.Cs. there was no necessity of closing one channel considering the fact that the prospect of promotion in the other channel is bleak and most of the U.D.Cs. will not get opportunity for promotion as Head Clerk. Had both the channels been kept open, they could have either been promoted as Head Clerk or Inspector of Taxes. 5. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents submitted that for restructuring of the Department a policy decision was required to be taken on the basis of recommendation of the Central Committee and such policy decision is not opened to judicial scrutiny. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have no vested or accrued right for promotion. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2011) 6 SCC 725 . 6. Undisputedly, as per the recruitment rules published in the Gazette on 15.4.1987, 50% of the cadre posts of Inspector of Taxes were to be filled up by promotion from among the U.D.Cs. and the rest 50% by way of direct recruitment. One U.D.C. could be promoted as Head Clerk and he could also be promoted as Inspector of Taxes. In the impugned Notification, the State Government took a policy decision to close one of these two channels and fill up all the posts of Inspectors of Taxes by way of direct recruitment. However, the channel of promotion to the post of Head Clerk and subsequent higher post is still available to the U.D.Cs. This exercise has been done by the State Govt. while re-structuring the department and it has been done in parity with the rest of the departments. Therefore, such policy decision of the State Govt. However, the channel of promotion to the post of Head Clerk and subsequent higher post is still available to the U.D.Cs. This exercise has been done by the State Govt. while re-structuring the department and it has been done in parity with the rest of the departments. Therefore, such policy decision of the State Govt. does not suffer from any legal infirmity and ordinarily policy decisions of the Government are not open to judicial scrutiny. 7. As decided in the case of Deepak Agarwal (supra) no accrued or vested right is available with any Government servant for promotion to a higher post. Therefore, as a matter of right petitioners cannot claim promotion. Since we find that there is still one channel of promotion available to the petitioners, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to non availability of sufficient number of posts of Head Clerk becomes relevant. There may be some substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if the promotion is confined to one channel, i.e. to the post of Head Clerk, all the U.D.Cs. may not get a chance to be promoted to the post of Head Clerk and they may have to retire as U.D.Cs. In cases of those U.D.Cs. who do not get scope for promotion to the post of Head Clerk, they are entitled to the benefit of Assured Career Promotion (for short ’A.C.P.’ scheme) and they can get financial up-gradation on completion of the prescribed period of service under the said A.C.P. Therefore, even if some of the U.D.Cs do not get chance for promotion to the post of Head Clerk, they shall loose nothing as they would get benefit of A.C.P. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of the Court to a document which shows that such a policy decision has not been made applicable to the Directorate of Consumers Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Govt. of Manipur. From the said document we find that by order dated 27.11.2013 some of the U.D.Cs. working under the Directorate had been promoted as Civil Supply Inspectors. 9. of Manipur. From the said document we find that by order dated 27.11.2013 some of the U.D.Cs. working under the Directorate had been promoted as Civil Supply Inspectors. 9. The learned counsel for the State respondents submitted that in all the departments the policy decision has been implemented and because of non implementation of the said policy decision in the Directorate of Consumers Affairs, Food & Public Distribution promotion have been affected and once the promotion policy is made applicable to the said Directorate, no such promotion shall be affected. Since it is being done in phases, in course of time the policy decision shall also cover the Directorate of Consumers Affairs, Food & Public Distribution. 10. Since the petitioners have no accrued or vested right to claim for promotion and they have already one channel available to them for the purpose of promotion and that those who do not get chance for being promoted to the post of Head Clerk, shall get benefit of A.C.P., we find that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ application and same is dismissed.