JUDGMENT M. Katju, J. - A selection was held for selection to Class III and Class IV posts by a selection committee referred to in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, and a list of selected candidates was prepared on 4-4-1987. A true copy of the select list has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Petitioners are at serial Nos. 5, 7 and 15 of the select list. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that there were 14 vacancies, and since Surendra Kumar at serial No. 1 had already been earlier selected, hence all the three petitioners should have been given appointments, but this could not be done in view of the interim order dated 3-7-1987 of this Court in Writ Petition No. 14322 of 1986 (Prem Chand v. State of U.P.). Thereafter a stay vacation application was moved in the said writ petition, and by order dated 18-11-1987 the earlier order dated 3-4-87 was modified and it was directed that the appointments if made shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. 2. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that in view of the order of this Court dated 18-11-87 the petitioner should have been appointed, but in view of the G.O. dated 13-11-87 restrictions were imposed for making appointments by direct recruitments up to 31-3-1988. As such, the petitioners could not be appointed till 31-3-1988. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioners made a representation to the authorities concerned on 15-12-87, A true copy of the representation is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In this representation the petitioners have given the facts in detail and requested that the appointments should be made in accordance with the selection held in 1987. The Government vide its order dated 14-1-1988 called for a report from the District Magistrate on the points raised in the said representation of the petitioners dated 15-12-87. A true copy of the letter dated 14-1-88 of the Government is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate in his report dated 20-2-88 pointed out that appointments on the basis of the select list could not be made initially due to the interim order of the High Court, and thereafter due to the G.O. dated 13-11-87. A true copy of this report dated 20-2-88 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate in his report dated 20-2-88 pointed out that appointments on the basis of the select list could not be made initially due to the interim order of the High Court, and thereafter due to the G.O. dated 13-11-87. A true copy of this report dated 20-2-88 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioners made another representation dated 23-12-89 stating that they were not to blame in any manner, and requested that they should be appointed. A. true copy of the said representation dated 23-12-89 is Annexure-5 to the petition. The petitioners also pointed out that there were more than 14 vacancies against which they could be appointed. It is alleged in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that instead of redressing the petitioners grievance, the District Magistrate by his order dated 26-5-1990 appointed six persons after some interview alleged to have been conducted on 24-5-90 in an arbitrary manner. A true copy of the order dated 26-5-90 is Annexure-10. Thereafter the petitioners made another representation on 16-6-90 to the Commissioner and the District Magistrate, true copy of which is Annexure-11 to the writ petition. The petitioners kept on making representations but ultimately they had been compelled to file the present writ petition in which they have prayed for a mandamus that they should be appointed. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. In paragraph 2(d) it is alleged that the selection committee under some mistake selected 18 candidates whereas it was required to select only one candidate. In para 6 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that there was only 1 vacancy. It is also alleged that the select list does not survive after 3-7-1988 in accordance with the relevant rules. 4. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed in which it has been denied that there was only one vacancy. Annexure RA-6 attached to the rejoinder affidavit which is the order of the District Magistrate dated 13-2-87 mentions that seven persons are going to retire on the dates mentioned therein. All these dates fell in 1987, i.e. soon after the selection. The allegation of the respondents that there was only one vacancy is, therefore, clearly falsified by Annexure RA-6. Thus, there were at least seven more vacancies apart from one mentioned in the counter-affidavit which were available, and the petitioners could have been appointed against these vacancies. All these dates fell in 1987, i.e. soon after the selection. The allegation of the respondents that there was only one vacancy is, therefore, clearly falsified by Annexure RA-6. Thus, there were at least seven more vacancies apart from one mentioned in the counter-affidavit which were available, and the petitioners could have been appointed against these vacancies. No doubt these vacancies occurred after the selection, but it can reasonably be inferred that the selection was also for these vacancies. A perusal of the documents which are Annexures RA-1 and RA-2 shows that it was never the stand of the respondents earlier that there was only one vacancy. Hence, I am not prepared to believe that there was only-one vacancy. 5. In paragraph 17 of the rejoinder affidavit a mention has been made of several other appointments after 1987 in the Collectorate. In paragraph 17(c) it is stated that 30 vacancies occurred subsequent to 4-4-87, and the names of three more persons who retired have been mentioned therein. In view of the above, I am not prepared to believe that there was only one vacancy. 6. As regards the contention that the select list did not survive after 3-7-1988 in my opinion there is no force in this submission of the respondents in view of the judgment of this Court in Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 15243 of 1984) decided on 5-4-1985, followed in Rajesh Kumar Kesarvani v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 6332 of 1989) decided on 14-5-90, Jagmohan Sharma v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 5863 of 1985) decided on 28-1-88 and Kapil Asthana v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 5003 of 198 (sic)) decided on 23-2-87. In these decisions it has been stated that the select list will not lapse on the expiry of one year of the declaration of the result. 7. Since only three of the persons in the select list which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition have filed a writ petition in this Court, while others in the select list have not, in my opinion, a writ should be issued only in favour of these three persons. 7. Since only three of the persons in the select list which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition have filed a writ petition in this Court, while others in the select list have not, in my opinion, a writ should be issued only in favour of these three persons. The others, who have not filed a writ petition cannot get the benefit of this judgment because they have not cared to press their claim, and hence I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in favour of such persons. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to appoint the three petitioners on the posts for which they were selected vide select list dated 4-4-87 within one month of production of a certified copy of this judgment before the respondent No. 2. There is no order as to