JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners are three and all seek a writ of mandamus directing the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar the respondent No. 2 to offer an appointment to them in Class III posts. 2. Brief facts of the petition are that 82 vacancies were advertised in May, 1985 for Class III posts in the Ministerial cadre of Kanpur Nagar Judgeship and the examination was held in June, 1985. The result was then declared on 1st November, 1985. The grievance of the petitioners is that no appointment letter has been sent to them till date by the respondents. 3. Counsel for the petitioners states that he does not press the petition, for the petitioner No. 3 inasmuch as he got himself employed elsewhere and therefore, he does not want to persecute this petition. 4. The question whether the respondents failed to offer an appointment to the petitioners is to be seen only with regard to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 5. In Para 3 of the counter-affidavit sworn on behalf of the respondents, the contents of Para Nos. 1 to 5 have not been controverted. The question, therefore, is why the petitioners having been declared successful in the examination held for the class III posts in the year 1985, have not bee offered appointment till date. In Para 18 of the counter-affidavit it is deposed that the services of the ad-hoc appointees have been regularised in compliance with an order of the High Court on 15-12-1986 and, therefore, all the 82 vacancies as advertised in May, 1985, were not available for the candidates who were in the select list or the year 1985. It is further stated in Para 19 of the counter-affidavit that the select list was valid only for one year from the date of its publication and the candidates who were higher in position were given appointment and the remaining candidates whose position was lower, could not be offered appointment, as the period of one year elapsed. When a select list was prepared on the basis of the advertisement made for 82 vacancies in May 1985, it is difficult to comprehend as to why all of them were not entitled to be appointed against 82 vacancies. When a select list was prepared on the basis of the advertisement made for 82 vacancies in May 1985, it is difficult to comprehend as to why all of them were not entitled to be appointed against 82 vacancies. When there were 82 vacancies for which an advertisement was made, then the question of higher and lower rank was wholely immaterial, in so far as 82 candidates were concerned. The vacancies being available in May, 1985 and selection having been made against them, I see no reason why the appointment should have not been offered to all of them then and there. In Para 6 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents denied the averments of the petitioners made in Para 8 of the petition that whereas ad-hoc candidates were allowed to continue against the posts advertised in May, 1985 the appointment is denied to the petitioners. It is stated by the respondents in Para 6 of the counter-affidavit that the ad-hoc employees were not working in the vacancies advertised in May, 1985. In the advertisement mentioned above there are no terms and conditions circumscribing the 82 vacancies, which were advertised in May, 1985. This fact also shows that all the vacancies must hive been available to the selected candidates who appeared in the examination held in the (year 1985. There is no force in the plea that the life of the select list was only one year. The question is, when all 82 vacancies were clearly available for the selected candidates, why the appointments were not offered to them and why a period of one year was allowed to expire by the respondents. There is no cogent explanation for this. Otherwise also when a selection is made, the selected candidates get a right to be appointed against them unless there are cogent reasons preventing the respondents from offering the appointment. The plea that select list expired after one year could not be sustained and that on the facts and circumstances of the case, remains merely a specious plea. The plea that list expired after one year can at the most be raised with regard to those candidates who are in the waiting list, sustainability of which is also doubtful, but in any case that cannot be raised with regard to those candidates who were in the select list. 6. The plea that list expired after one year can at the most be raised with regard to those candidates who are in the waiting list, sustainability of which is also doubtful, but in any case that cannot be raised with regard to those candidates who were in the select list. 6. Selections are not made in routine without having the intention to offer the appointment to the selected candidates. When the selections are made, it is enjoined upon the respondents to offer the appointments to the selected candidates against the vacancies advertised thereby at an early date. No cogent explanation having been given as to why the vacancies were not filled up by the selected candidates, the case of the petitioners should succeed. 7. The petitioners also pray for quashing the appointments of the ad-hoc employees whose services were regularised by the order dated 15-12-1986. There is no conflict between the select list and the candidates whose services were regularised and, therefore, there is no need to grant this relief the petitioners. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 within a month from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon them by the petitioners. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.