JUDGMENT S.R. Singh, J. - By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment letters to them and to keep the select/waiting list alive until they are absorbed in the service of the respondents. 2. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation) was constituted with effect from 1-6-1972 under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (briefly called as the 'Act') vide Notification No. 2869/XXX-2-432-T-68, dated 31-8-1972 published in the Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 1-6-1972. Being the Road Transport Undertaking of the State of U. P., the Corporation is engaged in providing efficient, adequate econmical and properly co-ordinated road transport services to the travelling public. The Corporation has framed regulations under Section 45(22) (c) of the Act laying down terms and conditions of the service of its employees. The mode of direct recruitment is provided in Regulation 20 which reads as under : "20 (1) For the purposes of direct recruitment the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee comprising not less than three members. (2) The Selection Committee shall scrutinise the applications and require the eligible candidates to appear in a competitive examination/trade test and/or an interview as the appointing authority may decide. Note. - The syllabus for competitive examination shall be such as may be prescribed by the appointing authority from time to time. (3) The Selection Committee shall, having regard to the need of securing due representation of the candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other categories in accordance with Regulation 12, call for interview such number of candidates as they consider proper. (4) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate of marks obtained by them in the written test/trade test and/or interview. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the person getting higher marks in the written test/trade test shall be placed higher and where the selection is made on the basis of interview only, the person older in age shall be placed higher. The number of names in the list shall be larger (bit not larger by more than 5 per cent) then the number of vacancies. The Selection Committee shall forward the list of the appointing authority. The number of names in the list shall be larger (bit not larger by more than 5 per cent) then the number of vacancies. The Selection Committee shall forward the list of the appointing authority. (5) The list prepared under sub-regulation (4) shall remain alive for one year from the date it is finalised by the Selection Committee or till from the date next select whichever is earlier." 3. The factual matrix of the case is incapsulated as under. It appears that in anticipation of the requirements of 117 clearers (number could be increased or decreased) in the department, an advertisement (annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition), was published in local daily 'Aaj' inviting applications for preparing a select/waiting list of 117 candidates. The posts for which the applications were invited include the posts of Fitter, Motor Mechanic (diesel) Wireman, Sheet-metal, Welder, Painter, Blacksmith etc. The qualification pre-requisite to the selection as mentioned in the advertisement was that the candidates must possess certificates in the concerned trade from I. T. I. (Industrial Training Institute). Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners also put forth their candidatures by means of proper applications and alongwith others, they were also called for interview. According to the petitioners, they possessed requisite qualifications against the posts as per the requirements mentioned in the advertisement and as such they were fully qualified as a result of which they were called for interview on different dates trade-wise. In the trade of Electrician a waiting list of 29 candidates was published on 1.9-8-1989 in which the name of the petitioner No. 1 figures at serial No. 27. There is no denying of the fact that candidates in the aforesaid select list from serial Nos. 1 to 25 have been given appointment. Similarly, in so far as trade 'sheet Metal' is concerned, a waiting list consisting of 127 candidates was published on 14-8-1989 in which the petitioner No. 2 finds mention at serial No. 22. Admittedly, first 18 candidates of the list have been absorbed in the service. In respect of the trade 'Ftter', a select list was published on 1-9-1989 in which the petitioner No. 3 figured at serial No. 54 and out of which first 24 candidates have admittedly been taken into the service. Admittedly, first 18 candidates of the list have been absorbed in the service. In respect of the trade 'Ftter', a select list was published on 1-9-1989 in which the petitioner No. 3 figured at serial No. 54 and out of which first 24 candidates have admittedly been taken into the service. Having failed in getting appointment on the basis of the select list, the petitioners have invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs stated (supra). 4. I have heard Sri K.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.C. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri S. K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners consists in the submissions that the petitioners having been selected and enlisted in the select/waiting list prepared as aforesaid, acquired a right to get appointment as and when vacancies occur in the respective trades. On the other hand, the rival contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that in view of the Regulation 20(5) of the Regulations, the select/waiting list could not last beyond one year from the date it was finalised by the Selection Committee or till the preparation of the next select list, whichever may be earlier. As regards the inability of the department in giving further appointments to the candidates out of the aforesaid select/waiting list, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the State Government had put an embargo on appointments with effect from 22-1-1990 and as such, no appointments could have been made in defiance of the ban by the State Government. He further contended that since the list could not out last the period stipulated in the Regulations referred to above, it is now not possible to give appointments to the petitioners on the basis of the select/waiting list. Thus the controversy in the instant case lies in a narrow compass and it calls for determination as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the appointments vis-a-vis the ban of the State Government and the life of the select list having expired. 5. Having given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents. 5. Having given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents. I am pursuaded to the opinion that once a candidate is selected in a particular trade in the manner prescribed by Regulation 20 of the Regulations, he acquires a right to get appointment against the vacancies accumulating/occurring during the period, the select/waiting list remains in animation under Regulation 20(5) of the Regulations, I am buttressed up in my view by a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 'S. Govinda Raju v. Karnataka S. R. T. C. and another, 1986 SCC (Vol. 3) 273, in which the Supreme Court relying upon Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 framed for purposes of regulating the condition of service of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Employees under Section 45 (2) to) of the Act has observed as follows : "Once a candidate is selected and his name is included in the select list for appointment in accordance with the regulations, he gets a right to be considered for appointment as and when vacancy arise. In the light of the above decision, the provisions contained in Regulation 20 (5) can be so construed as to avoid any injustice visiting upon the empanelled candidates for no fault of theirs. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it would be in furtherance of the object and purpose of empanelment to hold that the selected candidates are entitled to be considered for appointment on the basis of the select list against the vacancies which occur during the period for which the select/waiting list is stipulated to remain valid. It thus necessarily follows that once a vacancy occurs during the relevant period, a selected candidate of the concerned trade in which the vacancy has occurred, acquires a right to be appointed against such vacancy in order of merit. As regards the plea based on the Government order in question putting an embargo on further appointments w. e. f. the date stated (supra). I am of the considered view that the said Government order did not have the effect of intruding upon the right so accruing in favour of a selected candidate during the sustenance of the select/waiting list. The select list of the concerned trades in which the petitioners were empanelled, were published on 19-8-1989, 14-8-1989 and 1-9-1989 respectively. I am of the considered view that the said Government order did not have the effect of intruding upon the right so accruing in favour of a selected candidate during the sustenance of the select/waiting list. The select list of the concerned trades in which the petitioners were empanelled, were published on 19-8-1989, 14-8-1989 and 1-9-1989 respectively. It cannot be disputed that the concerned select list shall be deemed to have been finalised within the meaning of Regulation 20 (5) of the Regulations on the date of publication and it thus follows that the select lists aforesaid, were valid upto 19-8-1990, 14-8-1990 and 1-9-1990 respectively and if any vacancy occurred during this period, it must be deemed to have occurred to the benefits and advantage of the successful candidate next in order of merit to the last of the appointed candidates. The Government order in question imposing a ban on further appointments in my opinion, could not be stretched to mean preventing either occurrence of vacancies or the accrual of right in favour of the empanelled candidates during the relevant period as observed above. Thus the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that because of the ban imposed by the State Government on appointments with effect from 22-1-1990 and also because of the expiration of one year's stipulated period from the date of finalisation of the select/waiting list, no appointments can now be made, does not impress me at all and has to be rejected in view of what have been propounded in the preceding part of this judgment. At the risk of repetition, it may be observed that the rights already accruing in favour of the selected candidates against the vacancies occurring during the period of the validity of the list, shall not be extinguished merely because the appointments could not be made as a consequence of the ban imposed by the Government order. 6. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners for appointment on the basis of the select/waiting lists prepared and published as aforesaid in the year 1989 as against the vacancies which occurred during the relevant period in the respective trades. No order as to the costs.