JUDGMENT B.M. Lal, J. - Heard Dr. R.G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing an order dated 30-9-1991 (Annexure-12) and Government order dated 29-8-1992 (Aunexure-13). It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner in any of the posts under Accounts Group Services on the basis of Combined States Services Examination 1988. 3. In the brief, the case of the petitioner is as under : - In pursuance to an advertisement dated 24-8-1988 issued by U.P. Public Service Commission for Combined States Services Examination, the petitioner applied as a scheduled caste candidate, tie appeared in the said examination with roll number 3696. The examination was held in February/March, 1989. Result of the written examination was published on 26-12-1989 wherein the petitioner was declared successful against the vacancies reserved for scheduled caste candidates. 4. On the basis of the result of written examination, the petitioner was directed to appear before the interview Board on 9-1-1990 and he duly appeared before the Interview Board. 5. Final result of the interview was declared on 16-1-1990. The petitioners name did not find place in the final result. 6. It is averred in para 7 of the petition that on queries, the petitioner has come to understand that his name has been included in the waiting list for Accounts Group Services, and that he is at very high position in the said waiting list. 7. It has also been mentioned in para 9 of the writ petition that four persons, who have been duly selected and their names duly included in the final select-list, did not joint the service. All these four persons belonged to scheduled caste category and their names were included in Accounts Group Services. 8. According to the petitioner, since four posts in Accounts Group Services have fallen vacant because of non-joining by the aforesaid four scheduled caste candidates and all these posts having been allotted in favour of members of scheduled caste candidates, it is only the scheduled caste candidates who are entitled to be appointed against these four posts by giving effect to the waiting list. 9. 9. The petitioner represented his matter to respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-7, dated 20-4-1992, but his submission has been rejected by the impugned order, dated 30-9-1992 (Annexure-12), and hence this petition. 10. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for petitioner are multifold. Firstly, he contended that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in the vacancies which came into existence because of non-joining of scheduled caste candidates and denial on the part of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16, 31 and 39 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, the respondents are ignoring Government Orders which clearly provide that vacancies reserved for scheduled cast and schedule tribe candidates, can only be filed up by issuing appointment orders to the candidate belonging to schedule caste and schedule Tribe. Thirdly, it is also contended that the rider of one year contained in the impugned order that selected candidate will be appointed only within a year from the date of receipt of recommendation by Public Service Commission and thereafter the select list will automatically lapse, is wholly arbitrary. In support (hereof, it is next contended that the limitation of one year cannot apply in such cases as the creation of vacancy is uncertain. 11. Before endeavouring to meet the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset we must observe that entire case of the petitioner as being set up and is being advanced has no foundation in as much as petitioner himself does not know his position in the waiting list or that whether he has been selected and placed in the waiting list and thereby entitled to claim his appointment. Merely, on an assumption that he might have been selected and secured a high position in the waiting list, he claims his appointment. In the circumstances, he is trying to build castle in the air. This being so, the grounds referred to above taken by petitioner do not exist in this case. 12. As regards the ground that vacancies reserved for schedule caste candidates must be filled up by appointing the candidates belonging to that castes, the same is also not available to the petitioner in view of the fact that if candidates of reserved quota are not available, then their quota is carried forward for the next selection. 12. As regards the ground that vacancies reserved for schedule caste candidates must be filled up by appointing the candidates belonging to that castes, the same is also not available to the petitioner in view of the fact that if candidates of reserved quota are not available, then their quota is carried forward for the next selection. Besides this, it is not the case of the petitioner that vacancies reserved for Scheduled Cast candidates, are being filled up by appointing candidates belonging to general category. 13. It may be observed have that in the absence of any statutory rule or any rule which has got a force of Jaw, as of right a candidate who has offered himself for selection or appointment to a particular post, has no vested right to get appointed. In L.J. Divakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 1555 , it has clearly been ruled that inviting the applications for a post does not by itself create any right to the post in the candidate who in response to the advertisement makes an application. He only offers himself to the considered for the post. His application only make him eligible for being considered for the post. It does not create any right in the candidate to the post. 14. In the instant case also in pursuance to an advertisement the petitioner had applied, appeared in the examination and thereafter in the interview but whether he was selected and placed in the waiting list, is not known to the petitioner himself. Therefore, simply by making application for appointment the petitioner acquires no right. 15. In a recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in Shankaran Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 , it has been ruled that even after final selection the candidate whose name is included in the merit list has no indefeasible right to appointment even if a vacancy exists. Simply it has to be seen that while ignoring the appointment, appointing authority was not acting arbitrarily, but in a bona fide manner. 16. In the instance case, the position of selection is not known to the petition, therefore the stage of Shankarsan Dashs case (Supra) has not reached. 17. Simply it has to be seen that while ignoring the appointment, appointing authority was not acting arbitrarily, but in a bona fide manner. 16. In the instance case, the position of selection is not known to the petition, therefore the stage of Shankarsan Dashs case (Supra) has not reached. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner laying much emphasis on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Court in W.P. No. 15245 of 1984, dated 5-4-1985, contended that if any vacancy arises within one year, the rule of one year shall not apply as the same does not provide any time during which it may be filled. If no prompt action is taken for appointment by the Commission by recommending names to the State Government and the State Government has not taken immediate steps in making the appointment and allowed the selection list to elapse, the candidate cannot be blamed. 18. True it is, if that is the position certainly arbitrary approach either of the Commission or the State Government cannot be allowed to stand as appointing authority is always expected to act in a bona fide manner. But this case also does not help the petitioner. As observed above, the position of his selection is not known to the petitioner nor the same has been stated in the writ petition. Simply it has been stated that on queries the petitioner has come to understand that his name has been included in the waiting list. 19. In view of the discussion aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.