R. RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner as narrated in the petition briefly stated is that he was an applicant for the post of Helper 'b' as per the Notification Annexure-A, dated 8-12-1983, Annexure-B is the selection list where the name of the petitioner is at Sl. No. 86. It is his further contention that some candidates who have not been selected have adopted indirect method to annul the list by resorting for a propaganda. They have even prevailed upon the C. O. D. to make an enquiry and ultimately the State Government came to the conclusion that there was no malpractice in the selection of the candidates. It is further contention that though the Government sent a communication as per Annexure-D, no posting order was issued to the petitioner and he is facing risk to his job. Realising this, he gave a representation on 7-1-1987 as per Annexure-E. He has also filed W. P. No. 5166 of 1987 which was disposed observing that the same is premature. Hence he prayed for issue of a direction or an order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take action to implement the list in accordance with law prohibiting the cancellation of the select list and for such other reliefs. ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of this writ petition, respondent-3 was impleaded under I. A. III. Additional grounds were urged under I A. II contending thereon that under regulation 6 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and recruitment) Regulations, 1968 it is obligatory that the list prepared shall be valid till all the candidates selected are provided with appointments unless it is quashed by the authority with due reasons. Again I, A. IV was filed to declare the letter at Annexure-R. 1 produced by the respondents as illegal and further direction to the respondents not to cancel the select list. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 in their statement of objections have denied all the averments made in the writ petition except the fact that the petitioner was an applicant for the post of Helper 'b'. But the contention that he was selected was false. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 in their statement of objections have denied all the averments made in the writ petition except the fact that the petitioner was an applicant for the post of Helper 'b'. But the contention that he was selected was false. It is further contended that the State Government had ordered for an inquiry into the allegations of malpractice and they have initiated action as per roe direction at Annexure-R. l. It is further contended that according to Regulation 9 of the k. S. R. T. C. (C and R) Regulations, the list of selected candidates prepared by the selection Authority shall be equal to number of existing vacancies plus vacancy that may arise for a period of one year from the date of publication as may be assessed by the Selection Authority. The Corporation may by resolution in exceptional cases extend the validity of any select list for a period not exceeding six months and according to the provisions to sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 6 that such unoperated portion of the list at the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list shall cease to be valid. Therefore the select list has become invalid in the eye of law. It is lastly contended that the matter was referred to the C. O. D. for detailed investigation due to the allegations made against the Selection Authority and the report is yet to be received. Again as per Annexure-R 1 the Government has permitted the Corporation to correct the present recruitment and to initiate action for fresh recruitment by calling fresh applications along with fresh declarations. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri R. U. Goulay, has submitted that the 1st respondent should be directed to consider the name of the petitioner for giving an appointment as he is in the selected list of candidates. The further submission made by the learned counsel is irrespective of C. O. D. enquiry, the first respondent has got a right to consider the candidature independently. . ( 5 ) AGAINST this submission, learned counsel for respondents-1 and 2 has submitted that this case is covered the principles enumerated in K. S. R. T. C. v k. C. Mudalagiriyappa reported in ILR 1987 Karnataka 3475. . ( 5 ) AGAINST this submission, learned counsel for respondents-1 and 2 has submitted that this case is covered the principles enumerated in K. S. R. T. C. v k. C. Mudalagiriyappa reported in ILR 1987 Karnataka 3475. Hence in accordance with the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, this court cannot issue a mandamus directing the Corporation to do a thing where there is no existence of legal right to the petitioner to get such an order. ( 6 ) THERE is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of the 1st respondent is the guidelines as to Selection, Selection list and providing employment to the selected candidates. ( 7 ) IN K. C, Moodalagiriappa 's case; referred to above, a Division Bench of this court while discussing Regulations 5 (1), 6 (4) and the scope of issue of mandamus in a similar circumstance has concluded as follows:" (I) There is no legal right in the petitioners to the appointment sought by them; (ii) The Selection Authority is incompetent to prepare the list so as to contain more number of candidates than required to fill up the existing vacancies and the vacancies likely to arise in the course of one year thereafter. The excess number may be ignored by the Corporation; (iii) The Corporation is not legally obliged to fill up the vacancies as and when they arise or near about the times thereafter, (iv) The candidates included in the list prepared under Regulation 6 (4) have no legal right to seek the appointment, if the Corporation chooses not to fill up the vacancies; (v) The functions of Selection Authority cannot be equated to that of the appointing authority. " ( 8 ) IN this case, it is an admitted fact that after interview, the mode of selection made by the Selection Committee was doubted and the matter was referred to c. O. D. for investigation. Ultimately, by virtue of Annexure-R1, a letter sent by the government, a direction was given to cancel the present recruitment which is in process and entrust the same to Lokayuktha to inquire into the malpractices done by the Recruitment Committee and to initiate fresh recruitment process by calling for fresh applications etc. Ultimately, by virtue of Annexure-R1, a letter sent by the government, a direction was given to cancel the present recruitment which is in process and entrust the same to Lokayuktha to inquire into the malpractices done by the Recruitment Committee and to initiate fresh recruitment process by calling for fresh applications etc. ( 9 ) IN view of the matter discussed above, this court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner and hence I make the followingorder this petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs. --- *** --- .