P. M. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS claim to have been selected and included in the select list for the appointment as Armed Police Constables in the interviews held from 22/12/1987 to Dece 24/12/1987 and pray for Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directions or order in the Nature of mandamus by directing the respondent No. 1 not to cancel the select list of the Armed Police Constables and to appoint the petitioners who are included in the select list. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS were called for the interview for appointment to the post of Armed Police Constables from 22/12/1987 to Dece- mber 24 1987 and after that select list was prepared but it was officially not published and the petitioners were also not informed of having been include in the select list. At the time of selected requisite educational qualifications as per the Constable (Armed Branch Unarmed Branch and Women Branch) Requirement Rules 1979 for the post of Armed Police Constable was passing of Std. VI but by Notification dated 15/02/1988 by the Constable (Armed Branch Unarmed Branch and Women Branch) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 1988 the educational qualification for appointment to the post of Armed Police Constable was changed and the requisite qualification for appoint- ment to the post of Armed Police Constable is passed Secondary School Certificate Examination or its equivalent. According to the petitioners they have come to know that they are included in the select list. Not only that they are included in the select list but they satisfy the changed criteria for the educational qualification for the recruitment to the post of Armed Police Constable as all the petitioners have passed Secondary School Certificate Examination. Inspite of the fact that the petitioners have been selected and included in the list and 48 vacant posts are available and 33 new posts of the Police Constables are created the petitioners are not being appointed and the respondent have decided to cancel the select list without offering appointment to the petitioners and accordingly the petitioners are denied this legitimate right to get appointment to the post of Armed Police Constables. Out of 144 candidates who were selected for the post of Armed Police Constables 60 are appointed in the month of February 1988. Out of 144 candidates who were selected for the post of Armed Police Constables 60 are appointed in the month of February 1988. In case the select list is cancelled they will lose the chance for appointment to the post of Armed Police Constable and their career will be ruined. According to the petitioners as other selects who did not satisfy the changed requisite criteria after the amendment in the Rules are appointed and the petitioners who satisfy the same criteria are denied appointment the equality clause under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitu- tion is violated and the petitioners are discriminated against. The petitioners assert that in past the select list was never cancelled till all the candidates were appointed and in case the select list is cancelled the problem about overage for the petitioners for other selection would also as the age limit is 22 years for unreserved class and 27 for reserved classes. ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY the select list of 144 candidates was prepared on 24/12/1987 and at that time the requisite educational qualifica- tion was Std. VI pass. When the list was prepared there were 101 vacancies of Armed Police Constables but subsequently because of the change of the policy of posting Armed Guards at the Treasury 47 vacancies were not available and 10 posts were kept vacant because of the order of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2608 of 1987 and therefore at that time 44 posts were actually vacant and were required to be filled in and were filled in by order dated 20/02/1988 After that 17 vacancies arose because of the transfer of 17 Armed Constables to unarmed branch and therefore 17 selects were appointed in August 1989. Subsequently 57 vacancies arose as the system of posting armed guards at Treasuries was reintroduced and the Special Civil Application No. 2608 of 1987 was dismissed but the said 57 vacancies were available in late 1988. According to the respondents the Recruitment Rules were amended in February 1988 and the educa- tional qualification was changed and therefore the Director General of Police by letter dated 7/09/1988 instructed the District Superintendent of Police to cancel the select lists and in pursuance of the said directives the District Superintendent of Police cancelled the select list. According to the respondents the Recruitment Rules were amended in February 1988 and the educa- tional qualification was changed and therefore the Director General of Police by letter dated 7/09/1988 instructed the District Superintendent of Police to cancel the select lists and in pursuance of the said directives the District Superintendent of Police cancelled the select list. It is also contended by the respondents that as per the policy laid down in Government Resolution dated 5/07/1982 the select list remains in force for one year after it is prepared or till the new waiting list is prepared whichever is earlier. As the list was prepared on 24/12/1987 it expired on 23/12/1988 and after that the appointment of the selects included in that list cannot be made. It is asserted that mere inclusion of the names in the select list does not create any right in favour of such selected candidates and therefore the petitioners have no legal or fundamental right to be appointed to the post of Armed Police Constables much less it can be enforced by writ of mandamus. It is admitted in the affidavit dated Dece 28/12/1988 of Geetha Johri District Superintendent of Police Sabarkantha that when the affidavit was filed there were 58 vacancies of the Armed Police Constables in Sabarkantha District. From the Affidavits of Geetha Johri D. S. P. and J. B. Chauhan Deputy Superintendent of Police it transpires that the petitioners were included in the select list and the appointments were made from the select list even after the Amendment in the Recruitment Rules and the select list is cancelled on or about 7/09/1988 on the instructions of the Inspector General of Police as the educational qualification criteria was changed. ( 4 ) FROM the facts and circumstances of the instant matter the moot questions requiring considerations are (1) Whether the petitioners have right to be appointed to the post of Armed Police Constable on the basis of their selection and inclusion in the select list (2) Whether the respondents have right to cancel the select list marely because the educational qualification criteria for the selection was changed by subsequent amendment in the Rules and not to consider the candidates who are placed in the select list who then satisfy the requisite qualification as per the Amended Rules for the appointment. (3) Whether the petitioners are discriminated against as the other selects are appointed even after the amendment in the Recruitment Rules and petitioners denied the appointment after September 1988 even when the list was in force. (4) Whether the petitioners can assert the right of being appointed after the period of one year when the select his has expired as such select list should remain in force only for the period of one year 85 per the Government Resolution dated 5/07/1982 (5) Even if the petitioners have right to be appointed can the respon- dents be compelled by writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioners as Armed Police Constables. The Police force consists of such number of several rules and the recruitment and all other conditions of service are such as may be determined by the State Government by general or special order as specified in Sec. 5 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 In exercise of the power under Sec. 5 of the Bombay Police Act the Government of Gujarat enacted the Constable (Armed Branch Unarmed Branch and Women Branch) Recruitment Rules 1979 The requisite educational qualification for appointment to the post of Armed Police Constable was Std. VI passed but by the amendment in the said Rules by the Constable (Armed Branch Unarmed Branch and Women Branch) Recru- itment (Amendment) Rules 1988 published by Government Notification dated 15/02/1988 the requisite educational qualification for appointment to the post of Agreed Police Constable has been changed an is passed Secondary School Certificate Examination or its equivalent. rule 2 of the said Rules provides that appointment to the post of Constable Armed Branch Unarmed Branch and Women Branch in the Gujarat Subordinate Service Class III in the Police Department shall be made by direct selection. Rule specifically provides that the selected candidates shall be on probation for two years and Rule 6 provides that the selected candidate shall have to undergo such train- ing as may be proscribed by the Government from time to time. Rule 7 provides that the selected candidate shall be required to pass a departmental examination and an examination in Hindi and Gujarat or both in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Government from time to time. Rule 8 imposes the condition of service for throe years after the training. Rule 7 provides that the selected candidate shall be required to pass a departmental examination and an examination in Hindi and Gujarat or both in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Government from time to time. Rule 8 imposes the condition of service for throe years after the training. It specifically provides that a candidate appointed by direct selection who will be imparted training at the Government cost shall be required to serve the Government for a period of there years and shall be required to execute a Security and Surety bond for such amount as may be prescribed by the Government. Rules therefor provide the method of selection the eligibility criteria including educational qualifications and physical fitness the training and the execution of bond at the time of appoint- ment. Considering the Recruitment Rules it is apparent that these candidates satisfying all the requisite qualifications are included in the select the after the competitive test found fit to be appointed for the post of armed constable and only a formal appointment order is required to be issued by the appointing authority. The appointing authority has nothing further to do for the selection and has to issue only the formal appointment order. The question is as to whether in such circumstances the appointing authority can deny the appointment even if the vacancy exists. If the vacancies do not exist the question of appointment does not arise. If as per the Rules or the Government guidelines the select list expires because of the expire of the period for which it is supposed to remain in force the question for consideration may be entirelyy different as in that case it is required to be considered as to whether the selected candidate has any right to be continue in the select list even after the list has expired but the consideration would be quite different when the list has not expired and is in force vacancies are available and the appointing authority has nothing more to do except to issue the appointment orders. Should such candidates who have proved their merits and are placed on the select list be denied the appointment ? It it is answered in the affirmative such deserving persons would be left to the mercy of the appointing authority which has nothing further to do except to issue the form appointment order. Should such candidates who have proved their merits and are placed on the select list be denied the appointment ? It it is answered in the affirmative such deserving persons would be left to the mercy of the appointing authority which has nothing further to do except to issue the form appointment order. Can such a situation be allowed to exist in a public appointment in given circumstances as discussed above ? This Court in concerned that with the situation that the the petitioners filed this petition the select list had not expired and the vacancies did exist and not the Situation in which vacancies did not exist till the select list expired because of the efflux of time for which it should have remained in force because of the Government policy decision or preparation of new select list. In a case in which the select list has expired for want of vacancies the circumstances may be quite different and the selected candidates may not have right to continue in the select list for indefinite period of time inspite of the police decision of the Government but that point is not being considered not required to be considered in this matter. In a democratic society in which equality of opportunity for employment to more under the State is enshrined in the constitution which is supreme law of the land it can hardly be contended and accepted that in a public employment by the State the selected candidate has absolutely no right for being appointed. especially when the vacancy exists and other reasons like misconduct disqualification etc. for denying the appointment do not exist. if that is accepted it would be doing violence to the provision of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Article 16 of the Constitution specifically provides for the equality of the opportunity for all citizens on the matter relating to the employment or appointment to any office under the State. If select list operates vacancy exists and the selected candidate is not appointed to the post despite no other disqualification and subsequently other persons are sought to be selected for the same vacant post it would amount to denial of equality of opportunity in the employment to the office under the State and would be violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the respondents that mere inclusion of the name in the select list does not create and vested right much less any fundamental right in the Petitioner for being appointed as Armed Police Constables. In support of the submission Mr. Antani learned Asstt. Government Pleaded referred Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab AIR 1984 SC 1850 . To that matter on consideration of materials on record the learned single Judge had come to the conclusion that there was neither any vacancy in the quota of direct recruits of Assistant Sub-Inspectors nor a single post meant for direct recruits was manned by an ad hoc employee and that no case of mala fides or favoritism had been made out and that there was no violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The point for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the person selected by the Subordinate Service Selection Board for direct appoint ment to the post of Assistant sub-Inspector of Police has got an unfettered right to be appointed on the basis of the recommendation made by the said Board. The Government requested the Board to select and recommend certain specified number of suitable persons for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police and accordingly the Board recommended the panel of 140 candidates but because of certain circumstances anticipated temporary vacancies were not available and about 48 posts ware offered to the candidates recommended by the Board. The remaining candidates recommended by the Board were not offered appointment as there were no vacancies and therefore the disgruntled candidates filed two petitions in the High Court. The High Court held that there was no vacancy in the quota of direct recruits. Supreme Court considered the provisions of Art. 320 of the Constitution of India and the purpose of establishing the independent body like the Public Service Commission and observed that the selection by the Commission however is only a recommendation of the Commission and the final authority for appointment is the Government and the Government may accept the recommendation or may decline to accept the same. But in case 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 reason and report for doing so and the Government is made answerable to the House for any departure vide Art. 373 at the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court then proceeded on observe:. . . . . . . THIS however does not clothe the appellant with any such right. They cannot claim as of right that the Government must access that recommendation of the Commission If However the vacancy is to be filed up the Government has to make appointment strictly adhering to be order of merits as recommended by the Public Service Commission on It cannot disturb the order of merit according to its own sweet will except for other good reasons viz. bad conduct or Character. The Government also cannot appoint a person whose name does not appear In the list. But it in open to the Government to decide bow 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 con be end of be mandamus We are supported in our view by two earlier decisions of this Court in A. N. D. Silva v. Union of India 1962 Suppl. (1) SCR 968 (AIR 1862 SC 1130) and State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra Marwaha 1974 (1) SCR 165 : ( AIR 1973 SC 2216 ). The contention of Mr. Anthony to the contrary cannot be accepted. It is clearly observed by the Supreme Court that it is within the powers of the Government to accept the recommendations of the Board or not to accept the same and to decide the number of appointment to be made and that the process of selection for the anticipated vacancies does not create any right to be appointed to the post. In the instant matter the question of Accepting the recommendations does not arise as the petitioners are already selected and are allocated to Sabarkantha District and only appointments are to be made. The question of existence of vacancy also did not arise as admittedly there were clear vacancies on which the appointment could be made. In the instant matter the question of Accepting the recommendations does not arise as the petitioners are already selected and are allocated to Sabarkantha District and only appointments are to be made. The question of existence of vacancy also did not arise as admittedly there were clear vacancies on which the appointment could be made. The observations in Jatinder kumar (supra) regarding right of being appointed therefore are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Whether such right ego be enforced by mandamus will be discussed at later stage. ( 6 ) MR. Antani learned Asstt. Govt. Pleaded referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra and Ors. AIR 1973 SC 2216 asserted that merely because the names of be petitioners are includes in the select list that itself does not confer any right upon them for appointment to the post and they have no right of appointment as Armed Police Constables. In that case the list was prepared for making further selection for appointment and during the process of further selection Government laid down the different criteria which was within the competence of the Government and therefore considering that aspect the Supreme Court observed that the mere fact that the candidates name appeared in the list does not entitle him to be appointed. The Its was merely to help the State Government in making the appointments and the stage for selection for the appointment was to come the. In the instant case not only the candidates are selected buy they are allocated to Sabarkantha District and only formal appointment order was to be made by the District Superintendent of Police Sabarkantha and nothing more was required to be done. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the respondents judgment of this Court in A. S. Patel and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1986 GLH (UJ) 52 is referred and it is asserted that the petitioners have no right to be appointed to the post. that was the case in which the petitioners were not selected for the post and the selection was for one year and no one was appointed in pursuance of the selection and the period of one year had expired and even the petition had become infractuous. that was the case in which the petitioners were not selected for the post and the selection was for one year and no one was appointed in pursuance of the selection and the period of one year had expired and even the petition had become infractuous. In light of that the observation was made by the Court that no one has right to be selected or appointed and even if person is selected and his name appears in the select Just he ares not get any right to be appointed to the post. The point was not directly under consideration of the learned single Judge and the observation was an obiter. ( 8 ) IN a subsequent judgment learned single Judge of this Court in Chaudhari Govabhai Nathubhai and Ors. v. Banaskantha Jilla Panchayat Seva Pasand Samiti and Anr. 1988 (1) GLH (UJ) 14 directed to make the appointments. In that case the select list as to remain in operation until fresh select list was prepared but no such subsequent select list was prepared and the vacancies were available and accordingly it was directed that it there were vacancies available the appointment should be made from amongst the candidates who were in the select that observing that it was not proper to days the Appointment to the petitioners of that case when the vacancies severe available merely on the ground that the process or the preparation of fresh select list was started by issuing fresh advertisement. It appears that no contention as to whether mandamus can be issued by Court in such fact situation was raised and canvassed in that latter and therefore the learned judge has not considered and decided that legal aspect. ( 9 ) MR. Y. N. Oza learned Advocate for the petitioners referring the judgment in Kamla Pareek v. Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board Jaipur 1982 (2) SLR 792 submitted that an similar circumstances the High Court issued the writ of mandamus and directed the appointment. In that case the final list for recruitment was prepared and the petitioners were allotted to Agricultural Produce Market Committee Jodhpur and only appointment letters were required to be issued and no further procedure for the appointment was to be made. In that case the final list for recruitment was prepared and the petitioners were allotted to Agricultural Produce Market Committee Jodhpur and only appointment letters were required to be issued and no further procedure for the appointment was to be made. The learned Judge on the fact of that particular case accepted the submission by the learned Advocate of the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of that case the observations by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra Marwaha AIR 1973 SC 2216 could be distinguished and directed to make the appointments. ( 10 ) RELYING on the judgment in Dr. A. F. Venkataratnam and Ors. v. The Chancellor University of Mysore and Anr. 1981 Lab. lc 848 by Karnataka High Court it is submitted that the petitioners have right of being appointed as the appointing authority was bound to make appointment as per the select list. The learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court was considering the provisions of sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 49 of the Karnataka State University Act which provided for the selection by the Board preparing the list and forwarding it to the Chancellor who shall make appointment in accordance with the same. In view of the learned Judge the Chancellor was bound to make appointment as per the list and had no discretion to reject the candidates except that the list is prepared in contravention of law or the procedure was not followed etc. In view of the learned Judge once the select list is properly prepared and in absence of any procedural illegality or want of qualification or existence of disqualification in the selected candidate Sec. 49 (6) of the Act created right in favour of the candidates selected by the Board and a corresponding duty on the part of the Chancellor to appoint a candidate selected for the post for which the appointment was intended. These observations are made by the learned Judge in reference to the provisions of sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 49 of the Act. However it is clear that even though Sec. 49 (6) or the Act did not specifically provide for creating the right the learned Judge observed that such right is created in favour of the candidates and corresponding duty in the appointing authority to make the appointment. Ultimately writ of mandamus is issued by the learned Judge. However it is clear that even though Sec. 49 (6) or the Act did not specifically provide for creating the right the learned Judge observed that such right is created in favour of the candidates and corresponding duty in the appointing authority to make the appointment. Ultimately writ of mandamus is issued by the learned Judge. ( 11 ) IN S. Govindaraja v. Kerala Road Transport Corporation and Anr. 1986 Lab. IC 1191 the facts were that the appellant was selected for the appointment as a Conductor in Kerala State Road Corporation and his name was placed in the select list prepared by the committee. He was not given regular appointment but was appointed to world as conductor in temporary vacancy and he continued to work for a period of more than 240 days. While in service as a conductor his services were terminated on the ground of unsuitability and further that the appellant would forfeit his chance for appointment in terms of selection and his namo shall stand deleted from the select list. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Allowing the Appeal it was observed by the Supreme Court that once a candidate is selected and his name is Included in the select list fog appointment in accordance with the regulations he gets a right to be considered for appointment as and when vacancy arises. ( 12 ) AS the petitioners were selected in accordance with the Rules and they even satisfy the requisite educational qualification as per the Amended Rules and there Was no reason for not appointing them as Armed Police Constables they have a right to be considered for appoint- ment. As discussed above the Recruitment Rules were amended on 15/02/1988 and even after that several appointments were made from the existing select list. The Inspector General of Police the by letter dated 7/09/1988 instructed the District Superintendent of Police Sabarkantha to cancel the select list and accordingly the District Superintendent of Police Sabarkantha respondent No. 3. cancelled the select list. It transpires that the select that was cancelled as by the amendment the requisite educational qualification incorporated is secondary School Certificate Examination passed or its requirement. cancelled the select list. It transpires that the select that was cancelled as by the amendment the requisite educational qualification incorporated is secondary School Certificate Examination passed or its requirement. It is not necessary for this Court to consider as to whether the subsequent change in the criteria for selection would ascot the candidates already selected and included in the select list for being appointed to the post of armed constable as in the instant matter it is the contention of the petitioners that all of them satisfy the requirement educational qualification even under the Amended Rules and that tact in not controverted. ( 13 ) THE District Superintendent of Police Sabarkantha respondent No. 1 had to conical the select list only under the insure oils of the Superior Officer respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 directed to cancel the select list prepared prior to the Amendment of the rules probably because at that time the requirement educational qualification was less but the respondent No. 2 was not the authority properly the select list. As provided in Rule 70 of the Gujarat Police Manual the selection is requited to be made by the Board canceling of the Officers specified in it. Apart from the fact that the selection was by other independent authority the respondent No. 2-Director General of Police could not have directed to cancel the entire select list including the amen of these who satisfied the requirement educational qualification even after the Amendment in the Rules. By the amendment the statement provision for selection was incorporated and therefore the entire select list could not have been directed to be cancelled. The instructions issued by the respondent No. 2-Director General of Police are therefore arbitrary unauthorized and void. Tack respondent No. 1-District Superintendent of Police Sabarkantha being the Subordinate Officer had to follow such arbitrary instructions and therefore the act of the respondent No. 1 in canceling the list and in not making the appointment inspite of the fact that the petitioners satisfied the requisite educational qualification and that there was no other reason for not making the appointment despite the vacancies were available is also unauthorized illegal arbitrary and void. ( 14 ) AFTER the Amendment the appointments of the candidates included in the select list were mode and subsequent to the instruc- tions by the Director General of Police the select list was cancelled and the appointments were not made. That would certainly discriminate the petitioners vis-a-vis the other selectees included in the said select list and appointed as Armed Police Constables. ( 15 ) THE contention of respondents is that list continues to be in force only for a period of one year and after that period it lapses. The Select List was prepared on 24/12/1987 and even if it is accepted that as per the Government instructions the select list was operative for one year it should have been operative upto 23/12/1988 However even prior to that it was cancelled in September 1988 The present petition was filed on 19/12/1988 and at that time the period of one year was not over. If at all the respondent No. 2 would not have instructed the respondent No. 1 to cancel the select list the respondent No. 1 would have certainly considered for appointment of the petitioners and in all probability made the appointments as the vacancies were available and there was as such no other reason for not appointing the petitioners as Armed Police Constables. Not only the right of appointment but even the right of being considered for appointment is denied to the petitioners during the period of operation of list by arbitrary orders of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Merely because subsequently during the pendency of the proceedings period of one year was over that by itself should not be a ground for denying the appointment to the petitioners 8s Armed Police Constables. ( 16 ) THE question however remains to be considered as to whether this Court by mandamus should direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners. As discussed above it is the right of the petitioners to be appointed as Armed Police Constables but can it be said that it is the corresponding duty of the respondents to make the appointment. The law on jurisdiction for writ of mandamus is now well settled by catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that for the writ of mandamus the legal right must vest in the petitioner and corresponding duty to be performed by the person against whom mandamus is sought. In Dr. The law on jurisdiction for writ of mandamus is now well settled by catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that for the writ of mandamus the legal right must vest in the petitioner and corresponding duty to be performed by the person against whom mandamus is sought. In Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College Bihar Sharif and Ors. AIR 1962 SC 1210 the provisions of Sec. 20 of the University of bihar Act and the Statutes thereunder which did not create any legal right to get an order of appointment or reinstate ment and corresponding duty on the governing body were being considered by the Supreme Court and in that light it is observed by the Supreme Court that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the respondents to do something it must be shown that the statutes impose a legal duty and the appellant has a legal right under the Statutes to enforce its performance. ( 17 ) IN Praga Tools Corporation v. C. V. Imanual and Ors. AIR 1969 SC 1306 the Supreme Court observed :. . . . ARTICLE 220 provides that every High Court shall have power to issue to any person or authority orders and writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus mandamus etc. or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. But It is well understood that a mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public or statutory duty in the performance of which the one who applies for it has a sufficient legal Interest. Thus. an application for mandamus will not lie for an order of reinstatement to an office which is essentially of a private character for can such an application be maintained to secure performance of obligations owed by Company towards its workmen or to resolve any private dispute. It is further observed:. . . . . . Therefore. the condition Precedent for the issue of mandamus is that there is in one claiming It a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by one against whom It is sought. An order of mandamus is in form. a commad directed to a person. It is further observed:. . . . . . Therefore. the condition Precedent for the issue of mandamus is that there is in one claiming It a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by one against whom It is sought. An order of mandamus is in form. a commad directed to a person. Corporation or and inferior Tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their Office and is in the nature of a public duty. It is however not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an authority body. A mandamus can issue for instance to an Official of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to Companies or Corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings. A mandamus would also hie against a company constituted by a statute for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibilities of (Cf Halsburys Laws of England (3rd Ed ). Vol. II p. 52 and onwards ). In the State of Haryana v. Subash Chandra Marwaha AIR 1973 SC 2216 while agreeing with the observations in the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur (supra) it is observed by the Supreme Court that :. . . . . . in order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Since there is no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15 persons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under the rules to enforce its performance the petition is clearly misconceived. In Jatinder Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court while agreeing with above views in Subash Chandra Marwahas case (supra) observed that no such rights is created which can be enforced by mandamus. ( 18 ) EVEN though it is a right or the petitioners to be considered for the appointment or even to be appointed as the Armed Police Constables it was not the corresponding duty of the appointing autho- rity to appoint and. ( 18 ) EVEN though it is a right or the petitioners to be considered for the appointment or even to be appointed as the Armed Police Constables it was not the corresponding duty of the appointing autho- rity to appoint and. therefore the mandamus cannot be issued to make the appointments of the petitioners. This Court therefore should not issue mandamus directing to make the appointment. However it is clear that the respondent No. 1 authority did not even consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment as the list was required to be cancelled by arbitrary and unlawful instructions by the respondent No. 2 necessary directions should be given and relief to consider for appointment be granted. ( 19 ) THE directions by the respondent No. 2 to cancel the select list to the respondent No. 1 and the action by the respondent No. 1 in cancelling the select list of the candidates are quashed and set aside The respondent No. 1 District Superintendent of Police Sabarkantha is directed to apply mind and consider the petitioners for appoint- ment as Armed Police Constables. While considering the petitioners for appointment as Armed Police Constables the respondent No. 1 may verify the educational qualification of the petitioners and ascertain as to whether each of the petitioners satisfied the requisite educational qualification as per the Amended Rules on the date when the appointment of last candidate from the select list was made. If the petitioners or soy one of them do not satisfy the said requisite educational qualifi- cation at above referred time the question of considering such petitioners or petitioner for appointment does not arise as this Court has proceeded on accepting the claim of the petitioners that they satisfied the requisite educational qualification even under the Amended Rules. The respondent No. 1 however shall not reject the claim of the petitioners for being appointed as Armed Police Constables only on the ground that the period of one year has expired and therefore the select list has ceased as the Respondent No. 1 did not consider the appointment of the petitioners even during the period of one year when the vacancies were available for the appointment as Armed Police Constables. The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the peti- tioners for appointment as Armed Police Constables within one month from the receipt of writ of this Court. The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the peti- tioners for appointment as Armed Police Constables within one month from the receipt of writ of this Court. This petition is accordingly allowed and the rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. ORDER mr. Dave learned Addl. Govt. Pleader prayed for staying the operation of the order. As period of one month is already given to respondents to give effect to the order the prayer for staying the operation of the order is rejected at this stage. (KMV) Direction given; part relief granted. .