JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J. The principal relief which was sought before the learned Single Judge and which has been declined by the impugned order dated 9 January 2014 was in the following terms: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to take sutiable decision by providing the promotional benefits by making necessary amendment in the U.P. Lekhpal Service Rules 2006 from the post of Chainman Group-D under 10% quota as earlier provided in Govt. order dated 4.8.1992 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition)." 2. The relief which was sought was for a mandamus to the State Government in the Revenue Department to make an amendment in the U.P. Lekhpal Service Rules, 2006 in the matter of promotional benefits. The learned Single Judge was justified and, in our view, correct in declining to entertain the petition for such relief. It is well settled that a mandamus cannot issue to a legislative body or for that matter to the authority vested with the power to frame subordinate legislation. The Court cannot direct that an amendment be brought about in subordinate legislation. 3. The subsequent prayer was for a direction to the State Government to take a decision on the proposal which was submitted by the Board of Revenue on 21 July 2011. Even this relief cannot be granted for the simple reason that this would require the State Government, in its capacity to frame subordinate legislation, to take a particular decision. Such a request cannot be entertained. Hence, the dismissal of the writ petition was in order and does not call for interference in appeal. This order shall, however, not preclude the State Government from examining the proposal submitted by the Board of Revenue and taking a decision thereon. 4. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.