JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Na.Ka.No.125104/GB.II(2)/2013 dated 21.08.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner notionally for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category I for the panel year 2010-22 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.) The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for notional promotion on par with his junior, to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was directly recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police and was appointed on 27.09.1987. He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 1999. The petitioner states that he is a meritorious Police Personnel and on account of an undue delay on the part of the respondents in preparation of panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, he lost his opportunity for promotion and attained the age of superannuation on 29.02.2012. 3. In view of the fact that the delay in preparing the panel for the year 2009-10, the petitioner lost his opportunity for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He made a representation to the Authorities to grant him notional promotion with all attendant benefits. The said representation was rejected on the ground that the juniors to the petitioners were promoted after the retirement of the writ petitioner and therefore the writ petitioner is not eligible to seek notional promotion. In other words, during the service period of the writ petitioner, none of his juniors were promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and thus, the benefit as such sought for to grant notional promotion cannot be granted. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seriously raised a concern about the preparation of panel by competent authorities. The said preparations are often made in a whimsical manner to suit their convenience under the guise of an administrative exigency. An opportunity of promotion to the employee cannot be denied. The panel is to be prepared in accordance with Rules and within the time stipulated. The said preparations are often made in a whimsical manner to suit their convenience under the guise of an administrative exigency. An opportunity of promotion to the employee cannot be denied. The panel is to be prepared in accordance with Rules and within the time stipulated. Inordinate delay in preparation of panel result in denial of opportunity to the rightful candidates and such a situation created at the instance of the authorities cannot be construed as an administrative delay and it is to be held as lapse on the part of the competent authorities. 5. The learned Senior counsel strenuously contended that consideration for inclusion in a panel is the basic right of an employee, when such a right is confirmed, an opportunity of promotion is also to be provided whenever a vacancy arises. The delay in preparation of panel by the Authorities result in denial should be construed as serious lapse on the part of the Department and in such circumstances, the employee aggrieved must be provided with a notional promotion and with all attendant benefits. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader objected the said contention by stating the panel is being prepared by taking an administrative decision and in the present case, none of the junior to the petitioner was promoted during the service period of the petitioner. Therefore, the case of the writ petitioner was not considered for the grant of notional promotion. In other words, the panel for promotion was prepared by including the name of the juniors, only after his retirement and therefore petitioner is not entitled for the relief and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 7. Considering the arguments as advanced between the parties to the lis on hand. No doubt consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of an employee and, employees who are all aspiring to secure promotion must be provided with an opportunity in the line of seniority and on merits, more so, in accordance with the Rules in force. This being the basic right of an employee, right to consideration at no circumstances, be denied. 8. A question arises, when such a right arises to an employee. The right to consider arises in the event of taking an administrative decision to fill up the promotional post in accordance with the Rules. This being the basic right of an employee, right to consideration at no circumstances, be denied. 8. A question arises, when such a right arises to an employee. The right to consider arises in the event of taking an administrative decision to fill up the promotional post in accordance with the Rules. Thus, in the event of an administrative decision to fill up the higher post and actions are initiated for preparation of panel, then alone the right to consider exist and certainly not before the said action. The point of right commences only after the administrative decision taken for preparation of panel. 9. The next question would be whether an employee gets a right to seek a direction against the competent authority in the matter of preparation of panel or to fill up the promotional posts. Such a right is not conferred at all on the employees. The right of employees are contractual in nature, which is based on the service conditions. Thus, an administrative decision is the prerogative of the employer and the right to consider the name of an employee would commence only after taking an administrative decision to prepare the panel of eligible persons fit for promotion to the higher post. 10. The third question would be delay in taking an administrative decision or preparation of panel if at all takes away the opportunity of an employee, and what would be the right, which can be claimed by an employee. In this regard administrative decisions are taken by the competent authorities based on various factors. There is a possibility of lapse on the part of the administration in preparing the panel belatedly or in some circumstances nil panel was also prepared. Nil panel is prepared even in the presence of availability of vacancies. Filling up of the vacancy is the administrative prerogative of the employer. The right of an employee under the service rules cannot be extended for the purpose of issuing a direction to the competent authorities to fill up the post or to prepare a panel for the purpose of grant of promotion. Such a right if granted would derail the administrative prerogative of the Executives. Such right is not conferred under the service jurisprudence on the employees. 11. Such a right if granted would derail the administrative prerogative of the Executives. Such right is not conferred under the service jurisprudence on the employees. 11. Thus, the right to create or abolish the posts and the right to fill up the post or to prepare panel is the prerogative of the administration and the employees cannot claim any right over such areas. The service rights of an employee is to be demarcated with reference to service conditions and therefore the right to consider an employee for inclusion of their name in the panel would not confer any further right to seek direction to fill up the post or to prepare a panel based on the vacancies or otherwise. 12. Even, if the vacancies are available then also an administrative decision can be taken not to fill up the post on various other administrative reasons. Such administrative reasons cannot be gone into by the High Court by exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power of judicial review conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is to ensure the processes through which a decision is taken by the competent authorities, in consonance with the statutes of Rules in force, but not the decision itself. The decision to be taken is vested with the authorities concerned. The power of judicial review can be extended to test the decisions and its validity with reference to the Rules in force. However, in the area of decision, the High Court cannot exercise the power of judicial review so as to derail the routine public administration to be run by the Executives which is the administrative power independently conferred under the Constitution. 13. Thus, no employee of the State is empowered to claim any right to seek a direction to fill up the post or to prepare a panel for promotion to the higher post. Such a right is not contemplated. But an employee may submit a representation to the authorities but the High Court cannot issue any direction to fill up the post or to prepare a panel for promotion to the higher posts by exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such a right is not contemplated. But an employee may submit a representation to the authorities but the High Court cannot issue any direction to fill up the post or to prepare a panel for promotion to the higher posts by exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such representation even if given by the employee may be considered by the authorities on public interest but even beyond that if any administrative decision is taken not to fill up the post, then thereafter the employee cannot pursue the matter and he has to wait till such time an administrative decision is taken for preparation of panel for promotion to the higher post. 14. This being the principles to be followed, this Court is of the considered opinion that Courts have held promotion per se cannot be claimed as an absolute right. Consideration for promotion is fundamental right. Consideration would arise only when an administrative decision is taken to fill up the post and thereafter prepare a panel of persons fit for promotion to the higher post. 15. In the present case, admittedly during the service period of the writ petitioner, none of his junior was promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. When his juniors were promoted, at that point of time, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and retired from service. In other words, juniors to the petitioners were promoted after his retirement and therefore petitioner is not entitled for the relief after his retirement and thus petitioner is not entitled for the relief of notional promotion or any other benefit. 16. Thus, the writ on hand is devoid on merits and hence stands dismissed. No costs.