JUDGMENT : Viju Abraham, J. The above Original Petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.1275 of 2021 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram aggrieved by Ext.P4 order dated 28.10.2021. 2. Brief facts necessary for consideration of the present Original Petition are as follows: Petitioner is included as Rank No.164 in Annexure-A1 list published on 10.11.2020 by the 5th respondent, Kerala Public Service Commission, for selection to the post of Lower Division Typist in Alappuzha District. The grievance of the petitioner is that in all 71 Grama Panchayats in Alappuzha District, Clerical staff, as well as Data Entry Operators, are engaged on a temporary basis and they are performing the duties of Lower Division Typists. As these posts are being filled up on a temporary basis, no regular posts are created and this has affected the chance of the petitioner for getting a regular appointment, though he was included in Annexure-A1 ranked list. It is contended that 38 Panchayats in Alappuzha District have submitted a proposal for filling up of vacancy of Lower Division Typists on a regular basis by creating the posts of Typists, as is evident from Annexure-A2 dated 30.12.2017. It is also the case of the petitioner that by Annexure-A3 proceedings dated 14.06.2018, 3rd respondent has submitted the proposal before the 2nd respondent recommending the creation of posts of Lower Division Typists in Grama Panchayats. On the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps to sanction posts of Lower Division Typists in various Panchayats in Alappuzha District on the basis of Annexures-A2 and A3 proceedings. 3. A detailed reply statement was filed by the 3rd respondent Director of Panchayats mainly contending that the temporary appointments now made in various Grama Panchayats to the post of Technical Assistants are based on Annexure-R3(a) Government Order dated 27.06.2012, whereby the Government has issued sanction to appoint a Technical Assistant in all the Grama Panchayats, to provide e-governance technical support and that it is specifically mandated in the said order that the appointment will be on a contract basis. The qualification of Lower Division Typists and the qualification prescribed for Technical Assistants are entirely different and therefore, by creating a post of Lower Division Typist in every Grama Panchayat, e-governance support to the Grama Panchayats cannot be achieved as the qualifications for both the posts are entirely different. It is also stated in the said reply statement that the proposal submitted by the Director of Panchayats, 3rd respondent herein, was considered by the Government and was rejected by Annexure-R3(b) order dated 24.07.2018 taking a stand that the request for post creation cannot be considered. It is also contended that as per Annexure-R3(c) dated 01.02.2021 the Government has decided to extend the term of appointment of Technical Assistants in Grama Panchayats up to 31.03.2022 based on performance appraisal. 4. The Tribunal considered the above O.A along with other connected cases and dismissed the same as per order dated 28.10.2021 holding that the applicant/petitioner herein will not come within the purview of “person aggrieved” under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and that creation of a post is a matter of policy of the Government and that mere inclusion of the name of the applicant in the ranked list will not confer upon him any right of appointment to any particular post. It is aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal as per Ext.P4 order that the present Original Petition is filed. 5. We have heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission appearing for respondents 5 and 6 and also Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 6. In the Original Application the petitioner has sought only for a direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps to sanction the post of Lower Division Typist in various Panchayats in Alappuzha District on the basis of AnnexuresA2 and A3 and he has not challenged Annexure-R3(b) order dated 24.07.2018 issued by the 1st respondent whereby the proposal submitted by the 3rd respondent was rejected. But a perusal of Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal would show that the petitioner has sought for time to amend the Original Application incorporating a challenge against Annexure-R3(b) order passed by the Government and the same was not allowed by the Tribunal taking a stand that issuance of Annexure-R3(b) order is one coming under the policy decision of the government and that the petitioner cannot be treated as a “person aggrieved” so as to raise a challenge against the same. Since a specific request was made by the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking time to amend the Original Application challenging Annexure-R3(b), we are inclined to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner in this Original Petition as against Annexure-R3(b) order as well. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is a person included in Annexure-A1 ranked list for selection to the post of Lower Division Typist in various departments in Alappuzha District. His contention is that since several persons are engaged on a temporary basis in 71 Grama Panchayats in Alappuzha District, the same will seriously affect the chance of the petitioner for getting an appointment, though he is included in Annexure-A1 ranked list. The primary question to be considered is as to whether inclusion in the ranked list will confer any right on the petitioner to get an appointment. It is settled law that a candidate included in a ranked list does not get an indefeasible right to be appointed and he has only a statutory right to be considered against the vacancies available and reported during the lifetime of such list, but no right to get appointed. 8. A Full Bench of this Court in Unnikrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2019 (1) KLT 896 (FB), has held as follows: “87.Viewed thus, a candidate in a rank list certainly obtains a statutory right for being considered for appointment to every vacancy reported during its life span, subject to his/her position and turn therein, but does not get a vested right for being appointed to a post. In fact, closely viewed, this is what Dr.Kesavankutty Nair (supra) also says, though the facts noticed by their Lordships in the said judgment are certainly at variance to the facts involved in these cases. In fact, closely viewed, this is what Dr.Kesavankutty Nair (supra) also says, though the facts noticed by their Lordships in the said judgment are certainly at variance to the facts involved in these cases. Therefore, it would not require for us to labour much on the validity of the ratio in Dr.Kesavankutty Nair (supra), since, according to us, this has now been cemented through various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above. We are, therefore, clear in our mind that Dr.Kesavankutty Nair (supra) lays down the correct law and further that it does not require for us to deviate from the views therein for the purpose of resolution of the disputes in these cases. 88. To sum up: (a) .... ..... xxx xxx xxx xxx (f) The views and conclusions in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Dr.Kesavankutty Nair ( 1977 KLT 818 ), that a candidate in a rank list does not get an indefeasible right to be appointed, is certainly good law and such position does not change even after the coming into force of the PSC Procedure Rules because these Rules only offer the candidates, included in a rank list, a statutory right to be considered against the vacancies available and reported during the lifetime of such list, but not to be appointed. The Full Bench in Unnikrishnan Nair's case (supra) followed the earlier decisions of this Court in Retnamma v. Kerala Public Service Commission, 1977 KLT 290 and Kerala Public Service Commission v. Dr.Kesavankutty Nair, 1977 KLT 818 , which held that inclusion of a candidate in the select list will not confer any right of appointment. In view of the settled position of law as stated above, it is only to be held that the petitioner has no right to seek for any appointment merely for the reason that he has been included in Annexure-A1 ranked list. 9. The main prayer sought by the petitioner in the Original Application is for a direction to the Government to take necessary steps to sanction posts of Lower Division Typists in various Panchayats in Alappuzha District. We are afraid such a prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in as much as the courts cannot direct the Government/departments to sanction and create posts, in as much as sanction and creation of posts will come squarely within the realm of policy decision of the Government. We are afraid such a prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in as much as the courts cannot direct the Government/departments to sanction and create posts, in as much as sanction and creation of posts will come squarely within the realm of policy decision of the Government. It is well settled that the courts cannot in the exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issue a mandamus to direct the Government to sanction and create posts as sanction and creation of posts is the sole prerogative of the Government. The Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Ilmo Devi and Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 899, in paragraph 25 held as follows: “25. The observations made in paragraph 9 are on surmises and conjunctures. Even the observations made that they have worked continuously and for the whole day are also without any basis and for which there is no supporting evidence. In any case, the fact remains that the respondents served as part-time employees and were contingent paid staff. As observed above, there are no sanctioned posts in the Post Office in which the respondents were working, therefore, the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order are not permissible in the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court cannot, in exercise of the power under Article 226, issue a Mandamus to direct the Department to sanction and create the posts. The High Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, also cannot direct the Government and/or the Department to formulate a particular regularization policy. Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is the sole prerogative of the Government. Even the creation and/or sanction of the posts is also the sole prerogative of the Government and the High Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue Mandamus and/or direct to create and sanction the posts.” (underline supplied) 10. Even the creation and/or sanction of the posts is also the sole prerogative of the Government and the High Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue Mandamus and/or direct to create and sanction the posts.” (underline supplied) 10. The Apex Court in P.U.Joshi v. Accountant General, (2003) 2 SCC 632, has held that questions relating to creation/abolition of posts are coming within the field of policy matters and taking of any such policy decision is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the Government and that the courts including Tribunals cannot direct the Government to undertake any such exercise. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads as follows: “10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” (underline supplied) 11. Further, the Apex Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408 , considered a similar question and held that creation and abolition of posts are purely executive functions and that courts cannot create a post where none exists as the court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the executive or legislature. Paragraphs 37 and 40 of the said judgment reads as follows: “37. Creation and abolition of posts and regularisation are purely executive functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC 632 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 191] . Hence, the court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we cannot issue any direction to absorb the respondents or continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive functions. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the executive or legislature. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and the judiciary, too, must know its limits. 40. The courts must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint, and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain. Orders for creation of posts, appointment on these posts, regularisation, fixing pay scales, continuation in service, promotions, etc. are all executive or legislative functions, and it is highly improper for Judges to step into this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional case. The relevant case-law and philosophy of judicial restraint has been laid down by the Madras High Court in great detail in Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy. Supdt. are all executive or legislative functions, and it is highly improper for Judges to step into this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional case. The relevant case-law and philosophy of judicial restraint has been laid down by the Madras High Court in great detail in Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy. Supdt. of Police [ AIR 2005 Mad 1 ] and we fully agree with the views expressed therein.” (underline supplied) 12. In view of the categoric declaration by the Apex Court as above, it is without any doubt that a party cannot seek a direction to the Government for the creation of posts since such exercise is within the exclusive domain of the State Government and it is not for the constitutional courts to issue any direction to the Government for creation of posts. The proposal submitted by the 3rd respondent, the Director of Panchayats, was considered by the Government and the same was rejected by the Government as per Annexure-R3(b) order. Therefore, the prayer sought by the petitioner to direct the Government to create posts of Lower Division Typists in various Panchayats in Alappuzha District is clearly unsustainable. 13. The further contention raised by the petitioner is that there is a total non-application of mind on the part of the Government in issuing Annexure-R3(b) order and the same is not a speaking one. As held above, the creation of posts, etc. are within the exclusive domain of the Government and are coming under the category of policy decisions upon which ordinarily interference by courts is not warranted. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that as various persons are continuing temporarily in the post of Technical Assistants in various Grama Panchayats and due to non-creation of posts of Lower Division Typists by the Government, the chance of the petitioner to get a public employment is substantially reduced. It is to be noted that the sanction to appoint a Technical Assistant in all the Grama panchayats was given by the Government as per Annexure-R3(a) order dated 27.06.2012 so as to provide e-governance technical support to various Grama Panchayats. Specific qualification was also provided for the post of Technical Assistants. A perusal of Annexure-R3(a) would reveal that the Technical Assistants have been appointed for a specific purpose based on the policy of the Government. Specific qualification was also provided for the post of Technical Assistants. A perusal of Annexure-R3(a) would reveal that the Technical Assistants have been appointed for a specific purpose based on the policy of the Government. The qualification prescribed for Technical Assistants is different from that of the qualification fixed for the post of Lower Division Typists and the duties are also entirely different. The proposal submitted by the Director of Panchayats, 3rd respondent herein, for the creation of posts of Lower Division Typists in Grama Panchayats was considered and rejected by the Government. The decision of the Government to sanction the post of Technical Assistants in Grama Panchayats as per Annexure-R3(a), as well as the decision of the Government as per Annexure-R3(b) dated 24.07.2018 not to create any post of Lower Division Typists in Grama Panchayats, are all policy decisions of the Government. It is settled law that courts cannot interfere with the policy decision of the Government unless it is arbitrary or illegal. Apex Court in Rachna v. Union of India (2021) 5 SCC 638 , has held that it is not in the domain of the courts to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. Further, the Apex Court in Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. v. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. , (2011) 1 SCC 640 , in the matter of interference by courts on administrative/policy decisions, has held that the judicial interference with the administrative decision should be only within narrow limits like when there is a clear violation of the statute or a constitutional provisions or when it is clearly arbitrary. 14. The Apex Court in Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. and another v. M.Sampoornamma, 1999 SCC(L&S) 1162, has held that during the operation of a bona fide policy decision for not making any fresh appointment even if in a case where a vacancy is existing, the courts cannot direct appointment to such vacancy. The Apex Court in paragraph 4 of the judgment held as follows: “4. It clearly appears that the High Court has failed to appreciate the real nature of compassionate appointments and the Scheme framed in that behalf. The Apex Court in paragraph 4 of the judgment held as follows: “4. It clearly appears that the High Court has failed to appreciate the real nature of compassionate appointments and the Scheme framed in that behalf. If for valid reasons, the general policy decision has been taken not to make any fresh appointment then it would not be proper for the Court to direct filling up of the post merely because there is a vacancy. The Court's sympathy and consequential orders/directions should not be such as would create an impediment in smooth and efficient running of the administration. Orders and directions for consideration of appointments on compassionate grounds should be made where it is possible and permissible for the employer to employ the dependant of his earlier employee. Once it is found that the decision of the employer not to make any fresh appointment is bona fide it would not be proper for the Court to question the same and in spite of the decision to that effect, direct him to consider appointing the person on compassionate grounds. Merely because a vacancy existed it was not proper for the High Court to direct the appellant Corporation to consider the respondent and give her appointment ignoring the ban for any fresh appointment. We, therefore, allow this appeal and quash the impugned order passed by the High Court.” 15. The Apex Court has occasion to consider a similar issue in State of Orissa and others v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia and others, (2003) 10 SCC 144 , and held that judicial direction for filling up of a post is not warranted in as much as the courts cannot interfere with the policy decision of the Government for recruitment unless it is arbitrary. In view of the above, we find that the petitioners have not made out a case for granting the reliefs sought for in the Original Application or to raise a challenge against Annexure-R3(b) order dated 24.07.2018 whereby the Government declined the proposal made by the 3rd respondent for creation of the post of Lower Division Typists in Grama Panchayats in as much as issuance of Annexure-R3(b) order is a policy decision of the Government and is not proper for this court to interfere with the same. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram dated 28.10.2021 in O.A. No. 1275 of 2021 and the above Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.