BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 19. 12. 1996 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3006 of 1992. The Writ petition was initially filed by 15 persons on 25. 5. 92 out of which only two persons are appellants namely petitioner No. 11 A. R. Ansari and petition No. 14 Abdul Aziz as appellants No. 2 and 3 respectively. Rajendra Bhardwaj, the appellant No. 1, was not at all a party in the petition. Appellant No. 4, Naresh Surana, was impleaded as petitioner No. 18 only in pursuance of his application dated 10. 10. 96.
(2.) PETITION was admitted and notices of the petition were issued on 27. 5. 92. Following interim order was made on 27. 5. 92 on the stay petition: " Heard. Issue notice of the stay application. Meanwhile, petitioners who find their name in the merit list as sent by the Public Service Commission in the month of March, 1991, shall be given appointment as Hindi Stenographer in accordance with list on fresh appointment shall be given in pursuance of examination which have been held later. The petitioner may take notices `dasti' for service on the respondents. It shall be the duty of the petitioners to get the notices served within period of eight weeks from today, failing which this stay order shall automatically come to an end without reference to the Bench. " The petitioners had alleged in their petition that an advertisement has been issued for recruitment of Hindi Stenographers by the respondents on 2. 4. 90 for 130 vacancies, it has also been stated in the advertisement that the said vacancies are liable to be reduced or increased. The result of the examination held in pursuance of the said advertisement was declared on 22. 03. 1991 in which 578 persons were declared successful to be considered for appointment. Out of those successful candidates, 147 persons were appointed against the 130 vacancies stated in the advertisement. Alleging that the examinations having been held after 7 years and a large number of vacancies are still lying vacant in the different departments of the State for Hindi Stenographers and that the lit of selected candidates remains in force for a period of two years, the petitioners are entitled to be considered and appointed on the posts lying vacant in order of merit and since the Govt. has already operated the select list in part beyond the advertised vacancies of 130 it was not open for the respondents to withhold select list and deny appointments to the petitioners on post of Stenographer in various departments of the State. On the aforesaid anvil a mandamus to respondents for giving appointments to the petitioners was sought. It was also alleged in the petition that in pursuance of appointments offered to 147 candidates out of the select list, only 56 candidates have joined as Stenographer and therefore, the respondents were under an obligation to operate remaining part of the select list and give appointment to the petitioners who were awaiting for appointment under the select list. On this premise, the following reliefs were claimed: i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to give appointments to the petitioners on the posts of Hindi Stenographers from the date the result was declared or from the date the list was operated first with all consequential benefits. ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be restrained from making fresh selection on the posts of Hindi Stenographers without exhausting the list prepared in pursuance of the advertisement dated 2. 4. 1990. iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly by issued in favour of the petitioners. iv) costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners. In pursuance of the interim order passed by the Court, ultimately th list had been operated until the merit of 429th candidate before the fresh selections were permitted to be made by the Court in 1994. The appellants No. 2 & 3, who were amongst the petitioners in the writ petition, were respectively at No. 532 and 434. During the pendency of the said petition, two applications were made by different applicants for being impleaded as petitioners. Firstly, by an application filed on 13. 12. 93 Satyanarayan and Ramlal made a prayer to be impleaded as petitioners. The said application was allowed and thereafter another application was made by appellant No. 4 Naresh Surana on 10. 10. 1996 for impleading as petitioner. The appellant No. 4 was at Serial No. 489 in merit position. Appellant No. 1 was never a party to the writ petition. The learned Judge, considering that mere inclusion of the name in the select list does not give a right to be appointed and as substantial number of candidates beyond the advertised vacancies had already been appointed during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the four appellants viz. Rajendra Bhardwaj. A. R. Ansari, Abdul Aziz and naresh Surana have preferred this appeal.
(3.) THERE is no dispute that the life of the list published on 22. 3. 91 was for a period of two years i. e. upto 22nd March 1993 upto which it could be operated. it is also not in dispute that out of the 578 candidates declared successful only 429 candidates have been offered appointment and it is not the case of the appellants that any persons has been offered appointment by deviating from the order or merit in the list from amongst successful candidates. The only contention that has been urged before us is that once the State Govt. has decided to operate the select list upto a particular number and some of them could not join in pursuance of offer made to them, such appointment to such vacancies for which offer was made, the respondent State Govt. was bound to operate the list atleast and give appointment to down candidates to the extent the candidates had not joined in pursuance of officer made. It was pointed out that out of 429 appointments offered, 72 candidates had not joined and the respondents have invited those persons again to join who had forfeited their appointments but has not offered appointments to persons down below the list. Having carefully considered the contention, the aforesaid contention does not call for consideration in the present case and in our opinion the appellants are not entitled to any relief. ;