JUDGMENT Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. - In this aforementioned writ petition, the petitioner who has been promoted to the post of Professor by virtue of order dated 06.04.2022 of the Assistant Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, has challenged the place of posting at Government Medical College at Keonjhar instead of allowing her to continue at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. She contends that on account of her seniority within her cadre and the medical condition of her and her husband, the decision of the authorities is illegal, mala fide and violation of the transfer policy introduced by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Odisha. 2. Now, since the cause of action of both the aforementioned Writ Petitions are broadly similar, these are being taken up together and have been dealt with by this common judgment treating the W.P.(C) No.9301 of 2022 as the leading case. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The present writ petitioner was initially appointed as an Asst. Surgeon in Koraput on 30.09.1991 and after completing her Post Graduate in Physiology she was posted as Lecturer in Physiology at SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack in the year 2003. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Associate Professor in the year 2006 and was transferred to VIMSAR Burla and served there. Therein, she suffered from PID (Prolapsed Intervertibral Disease) and CVI Grade-III (Chronic Venus Insufficient). Accordingly, the authority considered her representation and transferred her to SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack and posted her as Associate Professor in Physiology on 01.12.2017. 4. Here and now, by virtue of notification No.22051 dated 30.08.2017, the Department of Health and Family Welfare issued guidelines for transfer/promotion of Faculties, Superintendents and Dean and Principals and procedure for counseling respectively. 5. A Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter 'DPC') was held on 06.01.2022 to consider the case of 22 Associate Professors who were eligible in different disciplines for promotion to the post of Professor in respect of Government Medical Colleges of the state including the post of Professor in Physiology. 6. In the list of 6 faculty members in the subject, 3 Associate Professors namely Dr. Sulata Mohapatra (petitioner), Dr. Minati Pattnaik, and Dr. Archana Mishra (petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15924 of 2022) were found suitable and were recommended by the DPC for promotion to the rank of Professor in the discipline of Physiology. 6. In the list of 6 faculty members in the subject, 3 Associate Professors namely Dr. Sulata Mohapatra (petitioner), Dr. Minati Pattnaik, and Dr. Archana Mishra (petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15924 of 2022) were found suitable and were recommended by the DPC for promotion to the rank of Professor in the discipline of Physiology. The petitioner was placed at the top of the merit-cum-seniority list due to her experience and got to choose the posting first among the selected candidates. 7. The Director of Medical Education and Training, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter 'DMET') vide its Office Letter No.2196, dated 21.02.2022 informed the petitioner and other candidates of the counseling for posting(s) on the promotional post of Professor along with the direction to submit their choice(s) by e-mail in order of preference amongst the list of colleges by 21.02.2022, 3.00 PM. The election of option was to be done positively, else the candidate would have no choice regarding place of posting and then it would be the prerogative of the higher authorities to take appropriate decision for the candidates' place of posting. 8. On the date of counseling, the petitioner as well as Dr. Minati Pattnaik were asked by the DMET vide letter No. 2196, dated 21.02.2022, to exercise their choice of posting in respect of: (i). Govt. Medical College, Keonjhar. (ii). Govt. Medical College, Sundargarh.. 9. However, the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha requesting him to allow her to continue in SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack after her promotion to the post of Professor on the ground of her illness as well as the medical condition of her husband and her old mother who is suffering from chronic breast cancer. The said authority after considering her application passed an order to the Addl. Chief Secretary to allow her to face the Medical Board. The petitioner after receiving the same intimated the DMET in that regard with a request to defer the date of counseling for promotion to the post of Professor, Physiology. The petitioner also approached the authority for promotion and posting at SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack against the anticipated vacancy in March, 2022 on the retirement of one Prof. Bipin Bihari Pradhan. 10. Consequently, on the day of counseling i.e., 21.02.2022, the Petitioner did not exercise her choice for the post of Professor; neither in respect of Govt. The petitioner also approached the authority for promotion and posting at SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack against the anticipated vacancy in March, 2022 on the retirement of one Prof. Bipin Bihari Pradhan. 10. Consequently, on the day of counseling i.e., 21.02.2022, the Petitioner did not exercise her choice for the post of Professor; neither in respect of Govt. Medical College, Keonjhar nor in respect of Govt. Medical College, Sundargarh. Instead, the petitioner by an e-mail dated 21.02.2022 requested the DMET not to proceed with the counseling process and to include 3 others Medical Colleges namely Govt. Medical College, Balasore, Govt. Medical College, Baripada and the anticipated vacancy of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. But such request of the petitioner went in vain. 11. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing WP(C) No.5459 of 2022 with a prayer to quash counseling letter dated 21.02.2022. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Chief Secretary to consider her representation. 12. By virtue of the impugned order No. HFW-MEI-CASE-0009- 2022670/H/30.03.2022 the Chief Secretary, Department of H & FW rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to appear before the Standing Medical Board before her case is taken up for special consideration. 13. On 06.04.2022, Dr. Sulata Mohapatra (Petitioner) as well as Dr. Minati Pattnaik were promoted to the rank of Professor on ad-hoc basis and were posted to Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Keonjhar and Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sundargarh respectively. Pursuant to such order, she was relieved by Dean of SCB Medical College. 14. Following such facts, the petitioner made a representation to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Health and Family welfare Department as well as to the Dean and Principal, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack to forgo the aforementioned promotion owing to her illness and the medical condition of her husband and mother. Thus, the Dean kept the relief order in abeyance. 15. The petitioner re-made a representation on 19.05.2022 to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department that she wants to withdraw the application that she had submitted on 08.04.2022 to forego her promotion to the post of Professor in Physiology at Govt. Medical College, Keonjhar. The petitioner also moved an interim application for a prayer not to fill up the post of Professor, Physiology in SCB Medical College and Hospital at Cuttack. Medical College, Keonjhar. The petitioner also moved an interim application for a prayer not to fill up the post of Professor, Physiology in SCB Medical College and Hospital at Cuttack. This Court issued an order dated 20.06.2022 directing the Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare to consider the representation of the present petitioner. 16. Nevertheless, on 28.04.2022 the Medical Board issued the certificate mentioning findings about the petitioner's mother. The certificate did not mention any infirmities of the petitioner or her husband. 17. The present writ petitioners mainly assail the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 on the ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal, for it is violative of the Transfer and Posting Policy for the Government Medical College Teachers issued by Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Odisha in Notification No.HFW- MEI-MISC-0021-2017 and the whole process smacks malafide. II. PETITIONER'S SUBMISSIONS: 18. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: 19. The petitioner submitted that the Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Department of Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Odisha issued a Notification dated 30.08.2017 regarding transfer and posting policy for Medical College Teachers. The objective of such notification is to ensure availability of faculty in all Government Medical Colleges by ensuring equitable choice best deployment of teachers. It was also pointed out that the policy shall not be applicable to faculties who require special consideration on medical ground if recommended by standing medical board wherein the cases of medical grounds also cover the ones of spouse and children. 20. The petitioner alleged that in the instant case the concerned authority, in violation of the aforesaid notification, mentioned only two vacancies, deliberately masking three other vacancies including the anticipated vacancy at SCB Medical College Cuttack, only on the pretext to accommodate their choicest candidate. The present petitioner claims that she is the senior most employee of the said institution and is entitled to exercise her choice first. Moreover, as the petitioner and her husband are suffering from various serious ailments, she is entitled to avail the benefit provided under the said notification but she has been deprived from such benefit. For that, the authorities have distorted and vitiated the policy. 21. The petitioner also submitted that she had approached this Court vide W.P.(C)No.5459 of 2022 challenging the letter dated 21.02.2022 issued by the DMET. For that, the authorities have distorted and vitiated the policy. 21. The petitioner also submitted that she had approached this Court vide W.P.(C)No.5459 of 2022 challenging the letter dated 21.02.2022 issued by the DMET. After disposal of the writ application, the Court's order was communicated to the opposite parties for compliance but the Chief Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare (O.P. No.1) illegally and by overriding the order of this Court rejected her representation with a non-speaking order. 22. The petitioner submitted that as the DPC recommended three names for promotion to the post of Professor in Physiology, it is very clear that the selection committee considered promotion in respect to three posts in the following colleges, namely SCB MCH, Cuttack, Govt. Medical College, Sundargarh and Govt. Medical College, Keonjhar. Therefore, on 21.02.2022, the decision taken by the authorities to call only two of the three recommended names, to fill-up only the post(s) at Keonjhar and Sundargarh City, is suggestive of foul play which does not stand the ground of scrutiny and reason. 23. The petitioner argued that even though exigency of situation has been cited as to why the post in SCB Medical College and Hosspital, Cuttack was not considered at that point of time, the appointment to Sundargarh and Keonjhar College was made only on 06.04.2022; after the cut-off date. It is necessary to emphasize that counseling for the post at Keonjhar and Sundargarh had not been completed for before its completion, the petitioner had moved before this Court in W.P.(C)No.5459 of 2022 which was disposed of on 04.03.2022 with a direction the Chief Secretary for disposal of the to the representation. So, counseling for the two posts were never made. 24. On the other hand, as on 06.04.2022 when appropriate orders were issued to fill-up the post at Sundargarh and Keonjhar, three posts were vacant, i.e. posts in the medical colleges at Cuttack, Keonjhar and Sundargarh. It was submitted that the appointment order has been issued without counseling and the counseling ought to have been done in respect to three vacant posts as mentioned above. 25. It was further contended that neither the Chief Secretary nor did the Government consider the petitioner's grievances even after repeated attempts. After this Court's intervention, however, the Chief Secretary directed that the petitioner's case be considered on the basis of the result of the examination by the Medical Board. 25. It was further contended that neither the Chief Secretary nor did the Government consider the petitioner's grievances even after repeated attempts. After this Court's intervention, however, the Chief Secretary directed that the petitioner's case be considered on the basis of the result of the examination by the Medical Board. Unfortunately, on 06.04.2022, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Professor on ad-hoc basis and was posted to Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Keonjhar when the representation could not have been said to be decided finally due to the pending Medical Board examination. 26. Regarding the petitioner's appearing before the Medical Board, it was submitted that the authorities' conduct reek of malafide as they deliberately tried to deprive her from justice. 27. The petitioner submitted that the grounds raised above were compounded by the fact that immediately on receipt of the order of promotion the petitioner was relieved of her current posting. Finding no way out, the petitioner submitted in writing that she wanted to forego the promotion and posting to Keonjhar. Thus, subsequently the Dean, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack intimated the petitioner that the order relieving from the college has been kept in abeyance. 28. In conclusion, the petitioner alleged that the opposite parties have prepared a faulty and fallacious select list against the direction of law in order to accommodate their choicest candidates in the advertised posts to deprive her of the rightful posting. III. OPPOSITE PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS: 29. Per contra, Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties submitted that the total number of post(s) of Professor in Physiology Department across all the Government Medical Colleges & Hospitals, including new Medical Colleges & Hospitals at Keonjhar and Sundargarh, is 09 and the man-in-position was 07. This includes Dr. Rama Raman Mohanty, DMET (I/c) and Dr. Umakanta Satapathy, Addl. DMET (I/c) by virtue of their substantive posting. . It was submitted that the said persons are both professor(s) of Physiology and are currently officiating in the respective administrative posts after posting as such by the Government. It has been contended that these persons are both professor(s) of physiology and currently occupy the respective administrative positions after their assignment as such by the Government. . It was submitted that the said persons are both professor(s) of Physiology and are currently officiating in the respective administrative posts after posting as such by the Government. It has been contended that these persons are both professor(s) of physiology and currently occupy the respective administrative positions after their assignment as such by the Government. Although, technically, there were 04 available vacancies for Professor of Physiology on the date of counseling i.e. PRM MCH, Baripada-01, FM MCH, Balasore-01, Government Medical College, Sundergarh-01, and Government Medical College, Keonjhar-01; 02 vacancies (one at FM MCH, Balasore and one at PRM MCH, Baripada) were decided to be unavailable for accommodating the above said 02 faculties in case of their reversion to their substantive posting on one ground or other. 30. It was strongly argued that the Government, as the appointing authority, has the discretionary power to fill up vacancies selectively on the basis of urgency to meet MCI/ NMC requirement and in public exigencies. It was highlighted that the State Government had decided to open two new Government Medical Colleges, one at Sundergarh and the other at Keonjhar, in academic year 2022-23 and accordingly, the applications for LoP (Letter of Permission) were filed before the NMC for grant of permission against which the MNC had given 03 weeks time vide its letter dated 24.03.2022 and 26.04.2022 to fill up all faculty posts in respect of Government MCH. Keonjhar and Government MCH, Sundergarh, respectively, or else it would not issue LoP for admission in 100 MBBS seats in academic year of 2022-23. In view of the above, the Government has rightly and judiciously decided to fill up 02 vacancies, one at Sundergarh and the other at Keonjhar, on priority during the process of counseling on 21.02.2022. 31. It was also submitted that the petitioner did not indicate her choice of posting during the process of counseling although she had scope to opt one out of two posts i.e., one at Government MCH, Sundargarh and other one at Government MCH, Keonjhar. Ergo, owing to the emergent requirement of faculty in both the MCHs and welfare of the people of Odisha, the Government vide the Department Notification No. 7634 dated 06.04.2022 promoted Dr. Sulata Mohapatra and Dr. Minati Patnaik to the rank of Professor and assigned them Government MCH, Keonjhar and Government MCH, Sundergarh, respectively. 32. Ergo, owing to the emergent requirement of faculty in both the MCHs and welfare of the people of Odisha, the Government vide the Department Notification No. 7634 dated 06.04.2022 promoted Dr. Sulata Mohapatra and Dr. Minati Patnaik to the rank of Professor and assigned them Government MCH, Keonjhar and Government MCH, Sundergarh, respectively. 32. The objectives of the 'Transparent Transfer and Posting Policy for the Government Medical College Teacher's vide H & FW Department Notification No. 22051 dated 30.08.2017 is to ensure availability of faculty in all Government Medical Colleges while ensuring equitable choice-based deployment of teachers. As per provision laid down in the said policy, all cases of diseases and disability including those of spouse and children, the certificate from Standing Medical board is to be furnished by the applicant for special consideration of his/her case on medical ground. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Standing Medical Board for consideration of her representation on medical grounds in due course of time in H & FW Department Letter No.7364 dated 04.04.2022. The Standing Medical Board examined all the treatment records of herself, her husband and mother. The Board certificate, however, only mentioned terminal illness of her dependent Mother. 33. It was submitted that on being promoted, the petitioner vide her representation dated 08.04.2022 addressed to the Dean & Principal, SCB MCH, Cuttack had intimated that she is forgoing her promotion to the post of Professor Physiology due to illness of her husband, terminal illness of her mother and her chronic illness. Subsequently, she has put forth another representation dated 19.05.2022 requesting therein to treat this representation as withdrawal of foregoing of promotion. Both her representations are now under consideration of Government. 34. The petitioner had approached this court vide W.P.(C)No.5459 of 2022 challenging the letter dated 21.02.2022 issued by the DMET. In rebuttal it was submitted that the Court's order was duly communicated, however, the Chief Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare reasonably rejected her representation on its merits. In this context, the counsel for the Opp. 34. The petitioner had approached this court vide W.P.(C)No.5459 of 2022 challenging the letter dated 21.02.2022 issued by the DMET. In rebuttal it was submitted that the Court's order was duly communicated, however, the Chief Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare reasonably rejected her representation on its merits. In this context, the counsel for the Opp. Parties also cited Suryakanta Parida v. Odisha Public Service Commission, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 1365 wherein it was held by this court: 'Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the submission of the petitioner is based on the Advertisement No. 11 of 2018-2019 issued by the opposite party No. 1-Odisha Public Service Commission. In his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Advertisement No. 11 of 2018-2019 issued by the opposite party No. 1-Odisha Public Service Commission two posts are lying vacant in Gastroenterology Department of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and the petitioner having requisite qualification applied for the same. Whereas, nowhere in the said Advertisement has it been mentioned that two posts were lying vacant in Gastroenterology Department of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Even if vacancies are there, the petitioner does not have any vested right to claim for such posts since it is under the absolute domain of the Government. The Health Department is under no obligation to appoint him in S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack.' 35. Under such circumstances, having full authority over the domain of posting and appointment of the posts in question, the Opposite Parties have taken necessary steps to fulfill the objectives of the aforementioned transfer policy. 36. These submissions of the counsel of Opp. Parties were echoed by the learned counsel for the intervener. He also submitted that the petitioner had already forgone her promotion and cannot change her option suited to her whims and requirements. Therefore, she is not entitled to the relief(s) sought for. IV. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 37. After having heard learned counsels for both sides and the counsel for the intervener, the following issues arise for consideration before this Court: A. Whether the authorities erred while not including the other vacancies, including SCB, MCH, at the time of counseling? Therefore, she is not entitled to the relief(s) sought for. IV. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 37. After having heard learned counsels for both sides and the counsel for the intervener, the following issues arise for consideration before this Court: A. Whether the authorities erred while not including the other vacancies, including SCB, MCH, at the time of counseling? B. Whether the petitioner can claim the anticipated vacancy of SCB, MCH against the 'Transfer and Posting Policy for the Government Medical College Teachers' issued by Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Odisha? C. Whether the petitioner after having forgone her promotion, change her option to revert back to her position? V. ISSUE A:Whether the authorities erred while not including the other vacancies, including SCB, MCH, at the time of counseling? 38. The mere fact that at some point of time, any vacancy was available but no appointment was made, does not by itself give the candidate a right or a claim to be appointed on a particular post. Even after completion of the selection process, it is the sole prerogative of the state to decide availability of vacancies for appointment/promotion. 39. Reference could be made to the decision of Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777 : ' It is the exclusive prerogative of the employer/State Administration to initiate the selection process for filling up vacancies occurred during a particular year. There may be vacancies available but for financial constraints, the State may not be in a position to initiate the selection process for making appointments. Bona fide decision taken by the appointing authority to leave certain vacancies unfilled, even after preparing the select list cannot be assailed. The courts/tribunals have no competence to issue direction to the State to initiate selection process to fill up the vacancies. A candidate only has a right to be considered for appointment, when the vacancies are advertised and selection process commences, if he possesses the requisite eligibility ' (Emphasis Supplied) 40. It has also been held by the Supreme court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.'(Emphasis Supplied) 41. Again, in the case of State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 the Supreme Court articulated similar sentiment: "10. One fails to see how the existence of vacancies give a legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment. The examination is for the purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection for appointment comes later. It is open then to the Government to decide how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed...'(Emphasis Supplied) 42. From the facts of the case and above-cited authorities, it seems the allegation about the malafide is more easily made than made out. In the instant case, there are no materials to warrant the conclusion that the action of the State Government has been discriminatory or malafide in not mentioning other available vacancies at the time of counseling. The contentions and citations given by the counsel of Opp. Parties has been satisfactory. Ergo, the court finds it difficult to adjudge that the authorities erred while not including the other vacancies, including SCB, MCH, at the time of counseling. VI. The contentions and citations given by the counsel of Opp. Parties has been satisfactory. Ergo, the court finds it difficult to adjudge that the authorities erred while not including the other vacancies, including SCB, MCH, at the time of counseling. VI. Issue B: Whether the petitioner can claim the anticipated vacancy of SCB, MCH against the 'Transfer and Posting Policy for the Government Medical College Teachers' issued by Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Odisha? 43. The petitioner does not have any vested right to be posted at the choice of her duty. One cannot claim right to an anticipated or future vacancy unless a contrary notion is evident from the concerned notification of appointment/promotion. 44. Even though the aforementioned transfer policy mentions that: 'The objectives of the policy is to ensure availability of faculty in all Government Medical Colleges while ensuring equitable choice based deployment of teachers. This policy will be adopted by the Government in the matters of Initial posting.' The vacancy at SCB, MCH at the time of counseling was only an anticipated one. At the time of counseling, the authorities were under no obligation to make available SCB, Medial College and Hospital, Cuttack as a potential option for posting. 45. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ishwar Singh Khatri, 1993 (2) SCALE 730 held that: 'Mr. Subba Rao for the appellant urged that the candidates included in the panels prepared by the Selection Board as far back in June 1984 cannot be held to have the right to appointment against vacancies arising subsequent to preparation of the panels. According to counsel, if that right is conceded it would be arbitrary and contrary to Article 16(1) of the Constitution which guarantees opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State. There is little doubt about this proposition. The selected candidates ordinarily will have a right to appointment against vacancies notified or available till the select list is prepared. They in any event cannot have a right against future vacancies.' (Emphasis supplied) 46. In Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122 the Supreme Court clarified the situation: 'The establishment of an independent body like Public Service Commission is to ensure selection of best available persons for appointment in a post to avoid arbitrariness and nepotism in the matter of appointment. In Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122 the Supreme Court clarified the situation: 'The establishment of an independent body like Public Service Commission is to ensure selection of best available persons for appointment in a post to avoid arbitrariness and nepotism in the matter of appointment. It is constituted by reasons of high ability varied experience and of undisputed integrity and further assisted by experts on the subject. It Is true that they are appointed by Government but once they are appointed their independence is secured by various provisions of the Constitution. Whenever the Government is required to make an appointment to a higher public office it is required to consult the Public Service Commission. The selection has to be made by the commission and the Government has to fill up the posts by appointing those selected and recommended by the Commission adhering to the order of merit in the list of candidates sent by the Public Service Commission. The selection by the Commission, however, is only a recommendation of the Commission and the final authority for appointment is the Government. The Government may accept the recommendation or may decline to accept the same. But if it chooses not to accept the recommendation of the Commission the Constitution enjoins the Government to place on the table of the Legislative Assembly its reasons and report for doing so. Thus, the Government is made answerable to the House for any departure vide Article 323 of the Constitution, This, however, does not clothe the appellants with any such right. They cannot claim as of right that the Government must accept the recommendation of the Commission. If, however, vacancy is to be filled up, the Government has to make appointment strictly adhering to the order of merit as recommended by the Public Service Commission. It cannot disturb the order of merit according to its own sweet will expect for other good reasons viz., bad conduct or character. The Government also cannot appoint a persons whose names does not appear in the list. But it is open to the Government to decide how many appointments will be made. The process for selection and selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post which can be enforced by a mandamus. But it is open to the Government to decide how many appointments will be made. The process for selection and selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post which can be enforced by a mandamus. We are supported in our view by the two earlier decisions of this Court in A.N.D. Silva v. Union of India and State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors. The contention of Mr. Anthony to the contrary cannot be accepted.'(Emphasis supplied) 47. The position of law against anticipated vacancies is clear. Anticipated Vacancies in matters of appointment/promotion is as good as no vacancy at all; unless provisions contrary to it have been notified. Ergo, the contentions of the petitioner against her claim on the anticipated vacancy of SCB, Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack does not hold water. VII. ISSUE C: Whether the petitioner after having forgone her promotion, change her option to revert back to her position? 48. It is argued on behalf of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was unjustifiably assigned a posting at Government MCH, Keonjhar ignoring her medical condition and her seniority. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the Petitioner had not joined his promotional post and submitted her representation on 08.04.2022, in writing, to forgo her promotion to the post of Professor, Physiology and requested to allow her to continue as Assistant Professor in the SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Indisputably, in the case at hand, it can be consciously ascertained that the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor and posted in Government MCH, Keonjhar on the basis of availability of vacancy at that point of time. Considering the matter in its right perspective, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner decided to forgo the promotion to the post of Professor out of her own volition and was not compelled by any means by the appointing authority i.e., the opposite parties. 49. At this point, this court would like to refer to decision of the Apex Court's decision in State of M.P.& Ors vs. Ramanand Pandey, (2014) 10 SCC 610 which overruled the decision of the High Court which had allowed the respondent to challenge the order relating to cancellation of his promotion. 49. At this point, this court would like to refer to decision of the Apex Court's decision in State of M.P.& Ors vs. Ramanand Pandey, (2014) 10 SCC 610 which overruled the decision of the High Court which had allowed the respondent to challenge the order relating to cancellation of his promotion. The respondent had sent back the order of promotion out of his own volition but approached the High Court through writ petition after two years; challenging the cancellation of his promotion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: 'The entire approach of the High Court is erroneous in dealing with the matter at hand. In fact, the issue focused and discussed, on the basis of which cancellation order dated November 25, 2006 is passed, itself is extraneous. From the conspectus of factual matrix taken note of above, it becomes clear that insofar as the Department is concerned, the respondent was duly considered for promotion, nay, he was in fact promoted to the post of ADO vide orders dated December 23, 2005 as he was found fit for promotion. It is, thus, not that kind of a case where the respondent was either not considered for promotion or the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee was kept in a sealed cover. On the contrary, promotion orders were issued, which, however, were cancelled subsequently..................As we find that it is the respondent himself who is responsible for cancellation of the promotion order as he did not join the promoted post, the impugned order of the High Court is clearly erroneous and against the law.' 50. The Petitioner's prayer insofar as promoting and repositioning her in the SCB, Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack where she was continuing or at a nearby place, is unsustainable as the Petitioner was holding a transferable post and under the conditions of service applicable to her, she was liable to be transferred and posted at any place within the State of Odisha. The Petitioner had no legal or statutory right to insist for being posted at one particular place. 51. It is worthwhile to stress upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, 1989 SCR (2) 357. The Hon'ble Court held that: 'Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to other is an incident of service. 51. It is worthwhile to stress upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, 1989 SCR (2) 357. The Hon'ble Court held that: 'Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to other is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the Public Administration.' VIII. CONCLUSION: 52. As such, the impugned order is legal, fair and not in contravention with the aforesaid notification. The Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality, nor have they run the counseling process in a manner which renders it discriminatory against anyone or in discordance with the state provisions, or the present position of law. 53. However, this Court has taken note of the medical condition of the petitioner and her family. Even though the medical board certificate has not supported the claims of the petitioner, I would want the authorities to aid the petitioner in any way possible to lessen her worries at this juncture. 54. The Court has now and again stated the role of the State as a model employer with the fond hope that in future a deliberate disregard is not taken recourse to and deviance of such magnitude is not adopted to frustrate the claims of the employees. It should always be borne in mind that legitimate aspirations of the employees are not guillotined and a situation is not created where hopes end in despair. A sense of calm sensibility and concerned sincerity should be reflected in every step. An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and when the employees are absolutely sure that their trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated with dignified fairness then only the concept of good governance can be concretized. In the present case the conduct of the Opposite Parties falls short of expectation of a model employer. 55. It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that Petitioner has not been discharging her duties diligently, honestly and faithfully. In the present case the conduct of the Opposite Parties falls short of expectation of a model employer. 55. It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that Petitioner has not been discharging her duties diligently, honestly and faithfully. Therefore, in such circumstances, while she feels helpless in such circumstances, the authorities should not be the unbecoming of her hopes. While the laws could not be her savior today, this Court surely hopes the administration, which she has come to serve and toil for the institutions for many decades, would most certainly be her guardian angel. At the end, this Court is quite hopeful that the authority shall be sensible in accommodating her to a Medical College, considering her predicament in terms of her health and health condition of her family members so that she can concentrate better on her profession. 56. In light of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the present position of law, this Court has come to the conclusion that the writ petitioners cannot be granted any relief by way of a writ and the present Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. No order as to cost.