M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner whose name had been included it the list of selected candidates for appointment to the posts of assistant Traffic Managers on the establishment of the karnataka State Road Transport corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), has questioned the legality of the decision of the selection authority not to make further appointments on the basis of the list. ( 2 ) THE case has come up for preliminary hearing in 'b' Group after notice to the respondents Sri B. Thi- lak Hegde, learned coonsel had filed appearance for the Corporation. Since he has ceased to be the Standing counsel for the Corporation, Sri H. G. Balakrishna learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, was directed to take notice for the Corporation accordingly he took notice and appeared for the Corporation. By consent of both the counsel the petition is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by this order. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The Corporation invited applications for selection and appointment to the posts of Assistant Traffic managers (Class II) by an advertisement dt. 19. 4. 75 The petitioner among others submitted their applications to the Corporation seeking selection for appointment to the posts. ( 4 ) THE selection committee constituted for the purpose interviewed the applicants and. made the selection. A list of selected candidates was prepared and published as per memo dated 1. 12. 77 (Annexure-A ). It reads: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Central Office: Bangalore. No. KST CO: E. C. T. C. 991177-78 DT. 1. 12. 77 MEMO The following candidates, who were interviewed before The selection committee for the selection to Asst. Traffic Manager, Class II Post, on 6. 7. 77, at 10. 30 A. M. in Central Office Bangalore-27 has been selected for the previously mentioned post. The list is arranged in the order of merit and as per the Government Order No. D. P. A. R. I SBC 77 dated 4 March 1977. SI. No. Reg. No Name of the Candidate Classification 1. - - - - - - Candidates selected for vacancies that will arise in one year. 12. - - - 13. - - - 20%reserve as per C. B. R. No. 1973 Dt. 1. 12. 1971 16. SI. No. Reg. No Name of the Candidate Classification 1. - - - - - - Candidates selected for vacancies that will arise in one year. 12. - - - 13. - - - 20%reserve as per C. B. R. No. 1973 Dt. 1. 12. 1971 16. 701 BP Anandaraj SC Sdi/general Manager" thereafter the validity of the selectlist was challenged in W. P. No. 12882 of 78 and connected writ petitions. Those petitions were dismissed by an order made by this Court on 28. 2. 1979. By February 1981, 11 persons included in the list came to be appointed according to merit. On 16. 2. 1981 a notification was issued by the Corporation (Annexure-C ). It reads:"sub: Select list of candidates for the post of Asst. Traffic Managers published on 1. 12. 1977 under No. KST CO RCT C 991 dt. 1. 12. 1977. The Selection Authority in its meeting held on 20. 1. 1981 has recorded that operation of the unope- rated portion of the select list from merit No. 12 to 16, employment of candidates standing against these merit numbers of this length of time would not be in the best interest of the Corporation. The Selection Authority has therefore ordered to quash the unoperated portion of the said select list for the reasons recorded above. Sd/ Chairman, selection Authority/chairman, ksrtc. "as evident from the above notification a decision was taken not to operate the select list beyond SI. No. 12. The petitioner questions the legality of the said decision in this writ petition. ( 5 ) SRI R. U. Goulay, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged the following contention : once a list of selected candidates was prepared, in view of rule 6 (4) of the recruitment regulations framed by the corporation, it was obligatory on the part of the appointing authority to provide appointments to all the candidates. Rule 6 (4) on which the learned counsel relies, reads as follows:"6 (4) The Selection Authority shall after interviewing the candidates, select candidates found suitable for appointment and prepare an approved list of candidates selected in the order of merit. Rule 6 (4) on which the learned counsel relies, reads as follows:"6 (4) The Selection Authority shall after interviewing the candidates, select candidates found suitable for appointment and prepare an approved list of candidates selected in the order of merit. The list of candidates shall be prepared keep ing in view the reservations required for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled tribes and Backward Classes (as may be fixed by the Government from time to time regarding cycle of vacancies) and also the existing number of vacancies, vacnacies that may be expected to arise in one year. The list so prepared shall be valid till all the candidates selected are provided with appointment unless the Selection Authorities quash the list for reasons to be recorded in writing. "learned counsel ior the petitioner placed strong reliance on the aforesaid rule and submitted that the appoint ing authority can decline the appointment if only there were no vacancies and if there were vacancies there was no power given to the appointing authority not to operate a select list once prepared. Learned counsel also submitted that the decision of this Court in V. Gopalkrishna v. K. S R T C (1) supports his contention. ( 6 ) THOUGH the first part of the second paragraph of rule 6 (4) provides that the select-list will continue to operate until appointments are provided to all the candidates included in the said list, the second part expressly confers power on the selection authority to quash the list. This power certainly includes the power to decide as to whether a select list which had been partly operated would not be acted upon for making further appointments all that the rule requires is the authority must record its reasons for doing so. This requirement is imposed on the authority obviously for the reason that a decision not to operate on the select list should be taken on a reasonable basis. In the present case, the decision of the authority extracted earlier indicates that the reason given by the said authority in support of its decision not to operate the list beyond si. This requirement is imposed on the authority obviously for the reason that a decision not to operate on the select list should be taken on a reasonable basis. In the present case, the decision of the authority extracted earlier indicates that the reason given by the said authority in support of its decision not to operate the list beyond si. No. 12 was that the select list was prepared in the year 1977 and, therefore, it was not in the interest of the corporation to operate upon the list this decision clearly means that the selection authority was of the view that as about five years had clapsed from the date of publication of the select-list, preparation of a freh list of candidates for making further an pointments would be in the interest of the Corporation. It cannot be said that the reason given by the Section authority is not a valid one The moment such decision is taken by the selection authority, the right of the selected candidates included in the select-list for appointment comes to an end by the force of the very rule on which the petitioner relies. ( 7 ) THE decision in W. P No 4883 of 1979 does not support the contention of the petitioner. In the said case, even though there was no decision of the selection authority not to operate upon the select-list prepared earlier, appointment was refused and, therefore, it was held that in the absence of a decision of the selection authority quashing the select list, the list had to be followed. In the present case, there is the decision of the selection authority not to operate upon the list beyond SI. No. 12. On the other hand the ratio of the decision in Venkoba rao v. State of Mysore (2) is against the contention of the petitioner. In that case, while considering the provision of rule 9 of the Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers Rules, 1959, this Court held 1hat a candidate included in the list of selected candidates acquires no right for appointment as the Government had the absolute right to fix the number of posts required to be filled up. In that case, while considering the provision of rule 9 of the Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers Rules, 1959, this Court held 1hat a candidate included in the list of selected candidates acquires no right for appointment as the Government had the absolute right to fix the number of posts required to be filled up. Similarly in the present case also how long a select-list should be operated and how many posts should be filled up by appointing persons included in a select-list once prepared is for the decision of the selection authority and if it takes a decision not to operate upon a list for recorded reasons, which are valid, the right of a candidate included in the list of selected candidates for appointment comes to an end. Moreover the petitioner was only in the reserve list below the 13 candidates selected ( 8 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I make the following order : (i) Writ Petition is dismissed (ii) No costs --- *** --- .