Judgment:
Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. Various posts were advertised in the year 1998 for an appointment of a Gram Vikas Adhikari. The petitioner applied and appeared in the written examination, in which he was successful and thereafter appeared in the interview before the District Committee. A select list was issued in which the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 of the list of the waiting candidates. Out of 69 posts, 67 posts were filled up from the select list and by an order dated 7.8.2001, two persons from the waiting list, namely, Raghendra Singh and Lal Chandra were appointed. The petitioner contended that by an order dated 28.1.2000, the Additional Commissioner Administration Rural Development, U.P. Lucknow had written a letter to all the District Development Officers in the State of U.P. to indicate the number of vacancies existing on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari. Pursuant to the said letter the District Development Officer, Gorakhpur by a letter dated 9.2.2000 intimated that twenty two posts were vacant in his region. The petitioner submitted that when two persons from the waiting list were appointed on 7.8.2001 and there existed twenty two vacancies, the petitioner should have also been appointed from the waiting list as he was placed at serial No. 2 in the waiting list. The petitioner contended that he made various representations to the authorities and, eventually, when no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition praying that he should be appointed on the post of a Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari from the waiting list and that the same benefit should be given to him as given to the two persons who were earlier appointed by an order dated 7.8.2001.
2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and have submitted that out of the 69 posts that were advertised, 67 posts were filled up from those candidates whose name were found in the select list and subsequently, the two vacant posts were filled up from the candidates in the waiting list. One candidate was taken from the General category from the waiting list and the second candidate was taken from the waiting list of the Scheduled Caste and in this manner, all the 69 posts so advertised, were duly filled up. The respondents submitted that since the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 of the waiting list, he could not be appointed. It was further submitted that since the entire posts so advertised had been filled up, the waiting list came to an end and no further appointment could be made from the waiting list in the subsequent vacancy that came into existence.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there are vacancies existing, the waiting list should be utilized and that the petitioner should be given an appointment. In support of his submission, the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Govindaraju v. Karnataka S.R.T.C. and Anr. 1996 (3) SCC 273.
4. Heard Sri Niraj Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Rai, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5. The life of a waiting list comes to an end, the moment the vacancies (sic) advertised are filled up. The waiting list cannot be utilised to fill up the vacancies that had not been advertised nor can it be utilised fill up those vacancies which came into existence subsequently after the issuance of the advertisement. In Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Samaresh Bhowmick and Ors., 1999 (3) UPLBEC 1731, the Supreme Court held that the select list after the expiry of its validity period cannot be made available for filling up future vacancies.
6. In any case, a candidate in the waiting list does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against a vacancy. The mere fact that the petitioner's name was found in the waiting list does not mean that the petitioner has a bonafide right for an appointment. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, 1991[3] SCC 47 held-
' 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 indicates, 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 bonafide for appropriate reasons. And it 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. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.'
7. In All India SC & ST Employees' Association and Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen and Ors., [2001] 6 SCC 380 the Supreme Court held-
' Merely because the names of the candidates were included in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against the existing vacancies and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.'
8. Similar view was followed by the Supreme Court in Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and Ors., 2003[10] SCC 136, S. Renuka and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Anr., 2002 SCC[5] 195, Sabita Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1993 [1] SLR-44, State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. D. Dastagiri and Ors., 2003[3] ESC 291.
9. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally distinguishable. That was a case where the candidates name was found in the select list, but in the present case, the petitioner's name was only found in the waiting list which came to an end upon the filling up of the entire vacancies that were advertised. As stated earlier, once the vacancies are filled up, the waiting list comes to an end and cannot be utilized any further.
10. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.