The facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in brief, are as follows. Pursuant to advertisement made by the first respondent, Assam Rastra Bhasa Pracbar Samity, for. short, 'Samity' for appointment to the post of Finance Officer, the petitioner Durgeawar Talukdar appeared before the selection Board on 6.5.90. The petitioner's case is that he was selected and his name was placed in the first position; that the police verification at the instance of the fifth respondent, the Mantri of the Samity, is alto, in favour of the petitioner, but he has not been appointed; and that he learnt that the fifth respondent has been trying to appoint the, second respondent Dr. Madhab Das yice Principal of Hindi Training College. The case of the Samity, is that the Select List was to be approved by the Executive Committee of the Samity but the Executive Committee had not accorded approval to the Select List and, therefore, no formal and final announcement of the result had been made. That apart, the Samity is under tremendous financial hardship due to non-availability of funds and non receipt of various payments due to the Government and other departments. Furtner, the Executive Committee, vide, its resolution Nos. 8 and 9 of 12.8.90 has resolved to stop all appointments until the financial position of the Samity was sufficiently improved. In reply to the statement about the financial hardship of the Samity. the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the samity has appointed 17 persons - 10 Grade III and 7. Grade. IV 2. Shri SN Medhif learned .counsel for the petitioner has,contended that the decision not to appoint the petitioner is violative of, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,. as the decision was made malafide 3. In State of Haryana vs Subash Chander, AIR 1973 SC 2216 , The Supreme Court has held : "...mere entry in this lisl of the name of a candidate does not give him the right to be appointed. The advertisement that there are 15 vacancies to be filled does not also give him a right to be appointed. It May happen that the Government for financial or other administrative reasons may not fill up any vacancies. In such a case the candidates, even the first in the list, will not have a right to be appointed. The advertisement that there are 15 vacancies to be filled does not also give him a right to be appointed. It May happen that the Government for financial or other administrative reasons may not fill up any vacancies. In such a case the candidates, even the first in the list, will not have a right to be appointed. The list is merely to help the State Government in making the appointments showing which candidates have the minimum qualifications under the Rules. The stage for selection for appointement comes thereafter, and it is not disputed that under the, Constitution it is the State Government alone which can make the appointments.” The aforesaid decision has been approved by a Constitutional 'Bench of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 . In para 7 of the judgment, it is stated : It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found 'fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily, the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons."In view of the above cited cases, the petitioner has not acquired the right to be appointed merely because his name is in the Select List, even assuming that his selection has been approved by the Executive Committee. 4. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the decision not to fill up the vacancies was made malafide. It is for the petitioner to make definite allegation of malafide with full details and prove the same. The petitioner, in his affidavit, has stated that 17 persons, 10 in Grade III and 7 in Grade IV, have been appointed. But the affidavit does not indicate whether those appointments were made after 12.10.90, the date on which resolution was taken to stop all appointments until financial position of the Samity was sufficiently improved. The petitioner, in his affidavit, has stated that 17 persons, 10 in Grade III and 7 in Grade IV, have been appointed. But the affidavit does not indicate whether those appointments were made after 12.10.90, the date on which resolution was taken to stop all appointments until financial position of the Samity was sufficiently improved. The selection of the petitioner was to be approved by the Executive Committee but it was not approved. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sbankarsan's case, the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. The Samity has given reasons for taking the decision not to fill up the vacancie s and, therefore, the petitioner has failed to prove malafide. 5. For the reasons stated above, the decision not to fill up the vacancies was not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. In the result, the petition fails. No costs.