JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner on the post of Primary School Teacher (PRT) and for a further direction to them not to prepare a Select Panel without first giving an appointment to the petitioner. 2. A Panel for appointment to the posts of P. R. Ts. of Kendriya Vidyalay in Lucknow region was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of the Region, opposite party No. 3, on 23-7-1983. This Panel consisted of a large number of names in which the petitioner stood at Serial No. 71. The Panel was to remain valid for a period of one year and it was expected that vacancies for the posts of P - R. Ts. during the period of one year from 23-7-1983 to 22-7-1984 would be filled from that Panel. Forty-six persons on the Panel were first appointed as P. R Ts. the rest including the petitioner, who was 25 posts below, were not given an appointment. A fresh Panel was prepared on 10-8-1984, the petitioner was not selected in that Panel. 3. However, the petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher on 6-8-1986 in the Kendriya Vidyalaya at Gwalior in Jaipur Region and continues to work as such 4. The petitioners case is that there were "hundreds of posts" vacant under opposite party No. 3, but the petitioner was not given an appointment. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 3 had given ad hoc appointments to outsiders whose names were not in the Panel. It is urged that the petitioner was entitled to an appointment even by ousting ad hoc appointees. For these reasons he has prayed for the writ of mandamus mentioned above. 5. opposite-party No. 3 filed a counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner would have been given an appointment in his turn if any vacancy had arisen during the currency of the Panel. In Para 10 of the counter affidavit it was stated that 25 posts of P. R. Ts. were reserved for Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes candidates which could not be offered for appointment to the general candidates, including the petitioner. In Para 10 of the counter affidavit it was stated that 25 posts of P. R. Ts. were reserved for Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes candidates which could not be offered for appointment to the general candidates, including the petitioner. It was added that opposite-party No. 3 had not issued any ad hoc appointments to outsiders whose name did not find place in the Select Panel, but ad hoc appointments were made by the Principals for short durations under Articles 39 and 41 of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas. It was pointed out that 24 persons placed above the petitioner could not be appointed for want of vacancies and there was nothing mala fide in not offering any appointment to the petitioner. 6. In Para 30 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner said that 30 vacancies in Lucknow Region were filled by transfer from other Regions in June 1984, that by establishing two new Central Schools at Lucknow, 16 new posts were created in June 1984, 28 vacancies occurred in Lucknow Region in which 20 P. R. Ts. were transferred within June 1984, that 32 fresh appointments were made in September, 1984 against 100 vacancies of Lucknow Region which were advertised in December, 1983 and that 9 P. R. Ts. were transferred on request against ousting vacancies. In Para 6 it was stated that in the advertisement of December, 1983, 600 posts were advertised which included 100 posts for Lucknow Region and that since the Panel was in force, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed. 7. opposite-party No. 3 filed a reply to this rejoinder affidavit. It is stated that the advertisement of the vacancies in December, 1983 was for the year 1984 - 85 on all India Basis, he denied that this included 100 posts for Lucknow Region alone. The vacancy position in June - July, 1984 was also set out and it was stated that there were 25 other unfilled vacancies which were all recovered for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes vide Para 6, that on account of opening of new Kendriya Vidyalayas 18 new posts were sanctioned, and that 13 P. R. Ts. were transferred from Lucknow Region to other Regions. This made a total of 56 possible vacancies, it was explained that 47 out of these vacancies had been filled by transfer from other Regions to Lucknow Region, leaving only 9 vacant posts. 8. were transferred from Lucknow Region to other Regions. This made a total of 56 possible vacancies, it was explained that 47 out of these vacancies had been filled by transfer from other Regions to Lucknow Region, leaving only 9 vacant posts. 8. opposite-party No. 3 admitted that ad hoc appointments were made by the Principals under his authority, dated 7-6-1984, but these adhoc appointments had been made only against 25 posts reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. It was further stated that in August - September 1984, 41 appointments had been offered including 19 for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. 9. The petitioner filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit, dated 14-5-1985, in which he just made a bare denial of the facts set out in the aforesaid reply of opposite party No. 3. He, however, said that the reservation quota for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe was 22.5% but the opposite parties had not indicated the exact number which the quota involved. 10. We have heard the petitioner in person and Sri D. S. Randhawa learned counsel for the opposite parties. Two main points arise for consideration : (1) Whether adequate number of vacancies did exist on or before 22-7-1984, when the term of the panel expired ? (2) Whether the petitioner has a legal right to obtain appointment ? 11. Ordinarily, the High Court, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not record a finding of fact which is based on appreciation of evidence. That is basically the function of a civil court. We may, however, consider the case, as set out by the parties, in their statements on the question of vacancies The petitioner stated in Para 3 of his rejoinder affidavit that 30 vacancies in the Lucknow Region were filled by transfer from other Regions and 28 vacancies were filled by transfer within the Region. 9 P. R. Ts. were transferred on request against existing vacancies. We do not think that any grievance can be made about the filling of vacancies by transfers. Transfer of an employee is one of the exigencies of the public services, and transfers occasioned by administrative expediency have to be protected ordinarily, unless they are arbitrary and contrary to rules. 9 P. R. Ts. were transferred on request against existing vacancies. We do not think that any grievance can be made about the filling of vacancies by transfers. Transfer of an employee is one of the exigencies of the public services, and transfers occasioned by administrative expediency have to be protected ordinarily, unless they are arbitrary and contrary to rules. It is not shown by the petitioner that the administration was bound to retain the vacancies for the purposes of being filled by recruits on the panel and not to fill them by inter - region or inter - region transfers. 12. It is further stated in the said paragraph that 16 new posts of P. R. Ts. were created in June, 1984 by opening of new central schools. According to opposite party No. 3, the figure should be 18. Since the petitioner stood at the 25th position in the Select Panel, these vacancies also do not help him for the purposes of appointments. 13. The last sent of vacancies, set out in Para 3 of the rejoinder-Affidavit, relate to 32 fresh appointments made in September, 1984 against 100 vacancies of December, 1983. These 100 vacancies relate to those advertised for recruitment in December, 1983. The opposite parties do not admit that 100 vacancies out of 600, advertised December, 1983, concern Lucknow Region ; there is no material to rebut that denial. The important aspect is that according to the opposite parties the advertisement of December, 1983 made on All India basis, was for the vacancies of the Year 1984-85 and did not concern the panel which was prepared for the Year 1983-84 in which the petitioner was included. It is the petitioners own case that the appointments against those vacancies were made in September, 1984; according to the opposite-parties the appointments were made in August and September, 1984. The fife of the Select Panel, in which the petitioners name was included, expired on 22-7-1984. There is no question, therefore, of any of those vacancies to be available for any of the persons, including the petitioner, on the panel in question The mere fact that it was alleged in Para 6 of the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioners Panel was in force in December 1983, when the vacancies were advertised, does not bring any benefit to the petitioner because those were the vacancies for the subsequent year. 14. 14. Over and above the situation appearing from the petitioners own statement of case, the further statement of opposite party No. 3 in paras 4 and 6 of the reply to the rejoinder affidavit, is that 25 vacancies which remained unfilled were reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. There can be no doubt that the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates could not be made available to the general candidates. It is against those posts, according to para 9 of the reply of opposite party No. 3, that appointments were made by the Principals of the Central Schools under the authority of opposite-party No. 3. There is no illegality in the making of those ad hoc appointments so far as the question of the petitioners claim for those posts is concerned. 15. The affidavit of opposite party No. 3, in reply to the rejoinder affidavit, further mentions that 18 new posts were created on account of establishing new schools and 13 P. R. Ts. were transferred from Lucknow Region to other Regions, while 47 vacancies were filled by transfer from other Regions to Lucknow Region. We have already made out observations on the effect of the transfers of the vacancies to put it briefly, they do not establish any cause of grievance for a person, like the petitioner, on the Select Panel, who has never been offered an appointment. There are all the facts which appear in the affidavits of the parties in this petition. It is clear enough, for reasons recorded above, that adequate number of vacancies did not exist on or before 22-7-1984 to enable the appointment of the petitioner to any post. 16. The right of a person, placed on a Select Panel is a limited right. Although it is a valuable right, yet it is subject to reasonable administrative decisions and exigencies of service. Appointment cannot be refused to a person on a Select List on his turn arbitrarily or without reason; but if the turn never arrives or even if there is a scope for the turn to arrive, the appointing authority or the competent authority is, nevertheless, competent to refuse appointment for good reasons. In the case of State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra Marwaha, 1973 SC 2216, advertisement was issued to fill 15 posts in the Judicial Service. In the case of State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra Marwaha, 1973 SC 2216, advertisement was issued to fill 15 posts in the Judicial Service. After a competitive examination, a list of such 40 candidates was prepared who had secured 45% or more marks being the minimum marks prescribed under the rules for eligibility. The Government, however, appointed only 7 persons who had secured 55% or more. Some candidates who had obtained over 45% marks, but less than 55% marks, filed a writ petition asserting their right for appointment. The High Court held that the State Government was not bound to make all the 15 appointments, but at the same time, was not entitled to refuse appointment, despite vacancies existing, on the basis of securing 55% marks, because the rules had prescribed the minimum of 45%. The Supreme Court held that the rule of eligibility, i. e. 45% for being placed on the Select List, could not prevent the State Government from adopting a higher standard of 55% to ensure the merit of the candidates who are actually selected and appointed. The Supreme Court held that in the interests of maintaining a high standard of efficiency among the judicial officers, the Government was competent to appoint only those persons who had actually secured 55% marks namely, the 7 persons to whom the appointment had been given, and was not bound to offer appointment to any candidate of the Select List who had obtained the minimum eligibility marks, i. e 45%, but had not secured 55%. The ratio is that an employer is not bound to make all future appointments from a Select List provided of course there are, reasonable grounds for doing so. In the present case, the appointment was not offered to the petitioner because sufficient number of vacancies for general candidates did not exist. The petitioner, therefore, did not have a legal right to obtain appointment. 17. The petition is dismissed. 18. Parties shall bear their costs. 19. The petitioner shall be informed by post of the result of this writ petition on his address mentioned in para 3 of his application dated 16-7-1987.