JUDGMENT In Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India, reported in JT 1991 (2) SC 380, a Constitution Bench of this Court which had occasion to examine the question whether , candidate seeking appointment to a civil post can be regarded to have , acquired, at indefeasible right to appointment in such post merely because of the appearance of-his name in the merit list (select list) of candidates for such post has answered the question in the negative by enunciating the correct legal position thus: "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. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit on the' candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can, be permitted. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit on the' candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can, be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not filed any discordant note in the decisions in the State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and others (1974) 1 SCR 165 , Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and others: (1986) 4 SCC 268 , or Jitendra Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others: (1985) 1 SCR 899." If we have regard to the above enunciation that a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific Rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or 'for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In the instant case, when the Chandigarh Administration which received the complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in cru was prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose, found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got made in that regard, we are unable to find that the Chandigarh Administration had acted either arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons in canceling such dubious select list. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the Respondents as to the sustainability of the Judgment of CAT" under appeal on the ground of non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents (candidates in the select list) is a misconceived one and is consequently rejected. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the Respondents as to the sustainability of the Judgment of CAT" under appeal on the ground of non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents (candidates in the select list) is a misconceived one and is consequently rejected. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the Judgment under appeal, and reject the applications made by Respondents before CAT, Chandigarh.