SHAH, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) IN this group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of respondents in cancelling the select list for the post of Pagi, prepared as back as 4th of February, 1987, pursuant to advertisement dated 7th of September, 1983. The petitioners are the candidates, who applied for being considered and appointed for the post of Pagi. It appears that Ahmedabad City Primary Education Committee issued an advertisement in the Newspaper on 7th of September, 1983 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Pagi. The petitioners applied for such post and they were called for interview and ultimately a list of selected candidates was prepared. It is described as "select list of candidates for the post of Pagi". The list was of 193 candidates. It is signed by the then Chairman of the municipal School Board, Ahmedabad. ( 3 ) IT is required to be noted that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, 2172 candidates applied and they were interviewed and after extensive process of selection, select list of 193 candidates was prepared. It appears that the said select list was approved by Staff Selection Committee on 4th of February, 1987 vide its Resolution no. 234. Such resolution was passed by the Committee on 4th of February, 1987. ( 4 ) IT appears that, before any appointment could be given to the selected candidates, a Civil Suit was filed being Civil Suit No. 1859 of 1987 in the City civil Court at Ahmedabad. In such a suit, serious allegations were made against the process of selection. Initially on 18th of April, 1987, the learned Chamber judge of the City Civil Court directed the respondent-Corporation to maintain status quo which status quo was continued upto 11th of May, 1987. Because of such order of status quo, no appointment from the select list could be made. ( 5 ) AT this stage, it is also required to be mentioned that in such Civil Suit, reply to the application for temporary injunction was filed by the defendants, i. e. , Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the Municipal School Board and in such written statement, the case of the Corporation was that the select list prepared by it, was legal and valid and that the same was prepared in accordance with the rules and procedures prescribed. It was their case in such written statement that they were not in a position to make any appointment from the said select list because of the order of status quo granted by the City Civil Court and that they should be permitted to make appointment. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, it appears that in the aforesaid Civil Suit a Pursis was filed at exhibit-61 by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. As per the said Pursis, it was declared that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have decided to cancel the waiting list of pagies and decided not to implement such list. It was also declared that said defendants reserved their right to prepare fresh select list as and when found necessary. In view of the aforesaid Pursis filed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the said suit on 16th of March, 1988, Chamber Judge of the City Civil Court disposed of Exhibit-5 application for temporary injunction. It is thus clear that from 16th of march, 1988, no injunction operated, but, at the same time, it was made clear by ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the Municipal School Board that the aforesaid select list dated 4th of February, 1987 stood cancelled. Immediately thereafter two of these petitions came to be filed in this Court being Spl. C. A. No. 4167 of 1988 and 6449 of 1988. The petitioners of these petitions having inter alia prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners as pagies in the existing vacancies and they have further prayed for appropriate writ to quash and set aside the action of the respondent in cancelling the select list already prepared. They have also prayed for appropriate direction restraining the respondent from filling the post of Pagies from any other source. ( 7 ) THE third petition being Spl. C. A. No. 5425 of 1992 is undoubtedly based on the very same cause of action but it is belatedly filed when Municipal Corporation invited applications for the post of Pagies through advertisement at Annexure-A in the year 1992 and when attempt was made to prepare a fresh select list of pagies, one of the selected candidates has come forward by this petition to challenge such action of resorting to preparation of fresh select list and not operating the select list dated 4th of February, 1987. ( 8 ) IN response to the service of summons in the third petition, Administrative officer of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has filed the affidavit-in-reply and it is submitted that Ahmedabad Municipal School Board is competent to issue another advertisement for the post of Pagies. It is further submitted that Staff selection Committee recommended a list of candidates at its meeting held on 18th of January, 1986. However, such list was challenged before the City Civil Court by one of the candidates who had applied for the post by filing Civil Suit No. 1859 of 1987. The said suit was withdrawn as the said list was proposed to be cancelled by the Ahmedabad Municipal School Board. It is further submitted that there were several objections against the said list and the then Chairman of the School Board had directed the Administrative Officer to place the entire recommendations of the staff Selection Committee before the School Board. The said list was placed before the Board at its meeting held on 20th of June, 1990 and the Board had cancelled the said list. It appears that, the Municipal School Board has by Resolution no. 78 dated 20th of June, 1990 resolved to cancel the select list of 193 candidates after taking into consideration report of the Administrative Officer dated 20th of june, 1990. All reasons which had weighed with the School Board for cancellation of the said select are not stated in the Resolution itself and, therefore, it is not possible to know as to why the said resolution came to be cancelled. However, reliance is placed upon the affidavit-in-reply, wherein it is stated that the School board was satisfied that the said select list was required to be cancelled because of number of irregularities. It is also further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the recommendations of the Staff Selection Committee were never approved by the school Board - a submission which is not warranted by the record. It appears that vide Resolution No. 234 dated 4th February, 1987, the select list prepared by the staff Selection Committee is already approved by Municipal School Board. ( 9 ) IN the aforesaid fact situation, it is submitted by Mr. G. R. Udhwani and mr. It appears that vide Resolution No. 234 dated 4th February, 1987, the select list prepared by the staff Selection Committee is already approved by Municipal School Board. ( 9 ) IN the aforesaid fact situation, it is submitted by Mr. G. R. Udhwani and mr. Kalpesh Zaveri, learned Counsel for the petitioners that since select list was already prepared as back as 1987, persons whose names were included in the select list, were required to be appointed as against vacancies then existing and respondents were not justified in cancelling the select list without any justifiable reasons. They further submitted that no reason whatsoever is forthcoming from the affidavit-inreply which is filed in Spl. Civil Application No. 5425 of 1992, which would justify cancellation of a select list and if there was no justifiable reason for cancellation of select list, petitioners and other persons were entitled to be considered for appointment to the posts of Pagies on vacacies which existed. It was further submitted that in any case the decision of Ahmedabad Municipal School Board to cancel such select list was unreasonable, capricious and whimsical and was based on no relevant, germane and cogent reasons and, therefore, also said decision is required to be quashed and set aside and respondents are required to operate such select list of Pagies and to appoint persons from such list on the vacancies for the post of Pagies. In the alternative, it is submitted that petitioners were waiting in the fond hope that they would be selected on the post of Pagies pursuant to their selection and if at this stage they are denied appointment, they would be over-aged for any other public employment. Therefore, it is submitted that even on this count also cases of the petitioners and similarly situated candidates are required to be sympathetically considered. ( 10 ) AS against the aforesaid submission, Mr. B. P. Tanna, and Mr. S. N. Shelat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation have submitted before this Court that a select list as stated does not confer any right on a person whose name is included in the select list of being appointed on the post in question. ( 10 ) AS against the aforesaid submission, Mr. B. P. Tanna, and Mr. S. N. Shelat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation have submitted before this Court that a select list as stated does not confer any right on a person whose name is included in the select list of being appointed on the post in question. On inclusion of a name in the select list, at the most, an offer is made to a candidate but beyond such offer, no right is created in favour of a candidate and it is always open to the authorities to cancel such select list on valid and germane reasons. In the instant case, submit learned Counsel, a well considered decision was taken by the Municipal School Board to cancel the select list and once it is cancelled, petitioners and persons similarly situated cannot stake their claim for appointment to the post of Pagies based on inclusion of their names in the select list. It is further submitted that in the year 1992, a fresh select list of Pagies is prepared after issuing the public advertisement and inviting applications from eligible candidates. It is submitted that pursuant to such advertisement, number of eligible candidates have applied and after following the process of selection, a fresh select list of candidates for the post of Pagies is prepared and once a fresh select list is prepared, the persons, whose names are included in the select list of 1987 can have no right for the post of Pagies. Lastly, it is submitted that based on the advertisement issued in the year 1983 and on the select list prepared as back as 1987, respondents should not be compelled to fill in the vacancies of the post of Pagies as that would deprive fresh blood from competing for the post of Pagies and based on such stale list of 1987, no direction could be issued to fill-in the vacancies in the year 1994. ( 11 ) IN the case of State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, reported in air 1973 SC 2216 , the question arose before the Supreme Court when out of select list of 15 candidates, 7 were appointed as Subordinate Judges, while remaining persons from the select list were not appointed despite existence of vacancies. ( 11 ) IN the case of State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, reported in air 1973 SC 2216 , the question arose before the Supreme Court when out of select list of 15 candidates, 7 were appointed as Subordinate Judges, while remaining persons from the select list were not appointed despite existence of vacancies. The persons who were selected and whose names were included in the select list, but who were not offered any appointment thereupon filed the petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for mandamus requiring the State to appoint them on such vacancies. It appears that there were 15 vacancies. Pursuant to the competitive examination, a list of 40 candidates, who obtained 45% or more marks in the examination was prepared. The State Government, however, made 7 appointments only in the serial order of the list according to merit. Respondents who were ranking at Sl. Nos. 8, 9 and 13 did not get an order of appointment although there were vacancies and the reason given by the State Government was that it has decided that candidates getting less than 55 per cent of marks in the examination should not be appointed as Subordinate Judges in the interest of maintaining high standards of competence in Judicial Service. The case of the petitioners, therefore, was that though there were vacancies and their names were included in the select list, they were denied appointment and therefore, they prayed for issuance of mandamus. ( 12 ) IT was in the aforesaid fact situation while allowing the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab and Haryana and setting aside the order passed by the High court, the Supreme Court observed that existence of vacancy does not give a legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment. The examination is for the purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection for appointment comes later. It is open then to the Government to decide how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidates name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there may be a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the merit. The mere fact that a candidates name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there may be a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the merit. The only restrain put on the power of the Government to make appointments is that the Government shall not travel outside the list and that the Government shall not depart from the ranking given in the list. ( 13 ) AS regards power of the Court to issue mandamus, relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Government Body of the nalanda College, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1210 , the Court held that in order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Since there is no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15 persons who are in the list, it was held that there was no legal right in the petitioners to enforce its performance. ( 14 ) AS regards power of the Government not to appoint a person from the select list, the Court observed that this is essentially a matter of administrative policy and if the State Government thought it fit that in the interest of judicial competence persons securing less than 55 per cent of marks in the competitive examination should not be selected for appointment, it cannot be said that government has acted beyond its power. The factor which weighed with the State government was found to be just, proper and reasonable and such exercise of power was not regarded as unreasonable or arbitrary. ( 15 ) ONCE again in the case of Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, reported in air 1984 SC 1850 , the Court was called upon to decide the question as to whether a person selected by the Subordinate Service Selection Board for direct appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police has got an unfettered right to be appointed on the basis of the recommendation made by Selection Board. In the case before the Supreme Court, initially requisition was for seven persons for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and in the course of time, such requisition was modified to 57 posts and lastly it came to be modified to 227 posts. The Subordinate service Selection Board recommended a panel of 144 candidates. However, in the meanwhile, the proposal for disbandment of the Punjab Armed Police Battalion and creation of additional post in the District was turned down by the Government and, therefore, anticipated 117 vacancies did not arise. Only 57 vacancies, therefore, existed, 9 of which were offered to the wards of deceased police officers. Remaining 48 posts were offered to the candidates recommended by the Board in order of merit. The remaining candidates were not appointed as there were no vacancies and such candidates moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court rejected the petition and aggrieved petitioners approached the supreme Court. ( 16 ) THE Supreme Court in the aforesaid fact situation observed that the selection by the Commission, however, is only a recommendation of the Commission and the final authority for appointment is the Government. ( 17 ) IN the case of Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1987 SC 169 , the appellant was the candidate for appointment to the post of subordinate Judge in Haryana. Under the scheme of the Rules, the Public Service commission was required to hold first a written test in subjects chosen by the High court and next a Viva Voce Test. Unless a candidate secures 45 per cent of the marks in the written papers and 33 per cent in the language paper, he will not be called for the Viva Voce Test. All candidates securing 55 per cent of the marks in the aggregate in the written and Viva Voce Tests are considered as qualified for appointment. The appellant though secured 55 per cent of marks was not appointed as her name was not sent by the Public Service Commission to the Government. The Supreme Court in such fact situation found that the Public Service Commission is not required to make any further selection from the qualified candidate and is, therefore, not expected to withhold the name of any qualified candidate. The Supreme Court in such fact situation found that the Public Service Commission is not required to make any further selection from the qualified candidate and is, therefore, not expected to withhold the name of any qualified candidate. The duty of the Public Service Commission is to make available to the Government a complete list of qualified candidates arranged in order of merit. How should government act, is stated by the Supreme Court in the following words :"thereafter the Government is to make the selection strictly in the order in which they have been placed by the Commission as a result of the examination. The names of the selected candidates are then to be entered in the Register maintained by the High Court strictly in that order and appointments made from the names entered in that Register also strictly in the same order. It is, of course, open to the government not to fill up all the vacancies for a valid reason. The Government and the High Court may, for example, decide that though 55 per cent is the minimum qualifying marks, in the interests of higher standards, they would not appoint anyone who has obtained less than 60 per cent of the marks. "the Court after making reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) further observed as under :"however, as we said, the selection cannot arbitrarily be restricted to a few candidates, notwithstanding the number of vacancies and the availability of qualified candidates. There must be a conscious application of the mind of the Government and the High Court before the number of persons selected for appointment is restricted. Any other interpretation would make R. 8 of Part D meaningless. " ( 18 ) FROM the aforesaid observations it becomes clear that simply because of name of person is included in the select list, he does not acquire any right of being appointed on the post. Secondly, it is always open to the Government not to fill up all the vacancies for a valid reason. Such a decision should not be arbitrary and unreasonable but must be based on sound, rationale and conscious application of mind. If for reasons which are reasonable and rationale, it is decided not to fillup the vacancies, Government cannot be compelled by mandamus to fill up the vacancies. Such a decision should not be arbitrary and unreasonable but must be based on sound, rationale and conscious application of mind. If for reasons which are reasonable and rationale, it is decided not to fillup the vacancies, Government cannot be compelled by mandamus to fill up the vacancies. It appears that the matter was required to be examined by Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court as Division Bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter for examining the question whether a candidate whose name appears in the merit list on the basis of a competitive examination acquires indefeasible right of appointment as a Government servant if a vacancy exists. ( 19 ) IN the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 sc 1612 , a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court speaking through L. M. Sharma, J. (as His Lordship then was) examined the entire case law on the subject. In the said decision, the appellant was selected in the combined Civil Services examination held by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment to several services including the Indian Police Service (IPS) and the Police Services group b. After examination, a combined merit list for IPS and the Police Services group b was announced, in which name of the appellant was included. There were 70 vacancies in the IPS Cadre, 54 were in general category and 16 were reserved for SC and ST candidates. The position of the appellant in the list was not high enough to be included for appointment in the IPS Cadre. He was offered appointment in Police Services Group b which he accepted. On account of several candidates allotted to Police Services Group b not joining, the position of the appellant improved and he was on the top of list. In 1979, 14 vacancies arose in the IPS Cadre due to selected candidates not joining the service. The appellant, therefore, made representation that such vacancies should be filled up and he should be posted there. Such request was turned down and thereupon he approached delhi High Court. The case of the appellant was that since several vacancies in the IPS Cadre remained unfilled, he was entitled to be appointed in one of them as he was already selected for recruitment. Such request was turned down and thereupon he approached delhi High Court. The case of the appellant was that since several vacancies in the IPS Cadre remained unfilled, he was entitled to be appointed in one of them as he was already selected for recruitment. Negativing the contention of the appellant, the Supreme Court made following pertinent observations :"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 merits of 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 find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash chander Marwaha 1974 (1) SCR 165 : ( AIR 1973 SC 2216 ), Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, 1986 (4) SCC 268 : ( AIR 1987 SC 169 ), or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab 1985 (1) SCR 899 : ( AIR 1984 SC 1850 ). " ( 20 ) FROM the aforesaid observations, it becomes clear that even Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India has now taken the view that a successful candidate whose name is included in the select list, does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed. Notification of vacancies simply is an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on inclusion of their names in the select list they do not acquire any right to the post. There is no legal duty on the State to fill up the post. Notification of vacancies simply is an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on inclusion of their names in the select list they do not acquire any right to the post. There is no legal duty on the State to fill up the post. It is for the State to take a decision as to whether it wants to fill up all vacancies or not. Government has to decide how many appointments should be made. Existence of vacancy does not give a legal right to a selected candidate. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate and good reasons. Once it is established that Government has acted in good faith and for valid reasons decided not to fill in the post, there is no jurisdiction in the Court to issue mandamus to fill up the post from amongst candidates, whose names are included in the select list. The submission that the authorities were under a duty to continue the process of filling up all the vacancies until none remains vacant was in terms negatived by the Supreme Court. . ( 21 ) IN the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, reported in AIR 1993 SC 796 , the aforesaid principle was once again reiterated by Apex court in the following words :"a candidate who finds a place in 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 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. " ( 22 ) IT thus becomes clear that not only a selected candidate has no indefeasible right of being appointed to a post in absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment, but the Government has right to decide as to whether it wants to fill in all vacancies or as to how many vacancies it wants to fill in from the select list. If for valid reasons, acting bona fide and not arbitrarily, Government decides by conscious application of mind not to fill in the post or to cancel the select list, it is open to the Government to undertake such exercise. ( 23 ) AFTER examining position of law as stated by various decisions of the supreme Court, this Court is now called upon to decide as to whether petitioners whose names appeared in the select list prepared as back as 1987 have any right of being appointed on the post of Pagies. Obvious answer to the question is in the negative. However, second question which is required to be considered is whether decision of the respondent to cancel the said select list is based on valid, justifiable reasons. In Spl. C. A. No. 6449 of 1988, the then Deputy Chairman of Municipal school Board has filed the affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit-in-reply, it is stated as under :-"that when the waiting list of 193 Pagies candidates was prepared, objections were raised by some of the members of the School Board and a suit was filed. As a matter of fact, the then Chairman Shri G. I. Patel had instructed the Administrative Officer that the list should be made operative after 1-3-1987 and the Administrative officer should place the entire issue before the new Board and decision should be taken accordingly. I would like to place it on record that when this select list was placed before the Board many members objected to it. As a matter of fact, certain members of the then Board, which had majority of Congress-I Members have also objected to the selection dones. It was also found out that in the selection process done in 1987 instead of calling persons for interview out of applications received in 1983, few persons, without being called for interview, were communicated that they were selected for the post in question. It was also found out that in the selection process done in 1987 instead of calling persons for interview out of applications received in 1983, few persons, without being called for interview, were communicated that they were selected for the post in question. In other words, in an abrupt manner without following due process of law, just prior to expiry of the term of the School board, a farce of selection was created and this was known to everyone concerned and, therefore, it had become necessary to cancel the waiting list. In this connection number of suits were filed. Various allegations were made and, therefore, it was decided to scrap the list. " ( 24 ) THE Assistant Administrative Officers has also filed the affidavit-in-reply. In the said affidavit, it is stated as under :"when the list of 193 Pagies was prepared, objections were raised by some of the members of the School Board and a Suit was filed. As a matter of fact the then chairman Shri G. I. Patel had instructed the Administrative Officer that the list should be made operative after 1-3-1987 and the Administrative Officer should place the entire issue before the new Board and decision should be taken accordingly. The said list was placed before the Board at its meeting held on 20- 6-1990 and the Board had cancelled the said list. " ( 25 ) ). In view of the aforesaid stand in these two affidavits-in-reply and in view of the affidavit-in-reply filed in Spl. C. A. No. 5425 of 1992, it becomes clear that objections were raised against the select list prepared in the year 1987. A Civil Suit was also filed in the City Civil Court. In the meanwhlie, decision was taken by the Board to cancel the list as number of irregularities were committed in preparation of the list. It was found that process of selection was in fact not followed and number of names were irregularly included in the select list. The select list was allegedly prepared with unholy haste. In that view of the matter, if the decision was taken unanimously by the Board to cancel the list, it is difficult for this Court to hold that such decision was abritrary, capricious or was based on no valid reasons. The select list was allegedly prepared with unholy haste. In that view of the matter, if the decision was taken unanimously by the Board to cancel the list, it is difficult for this Court to hold that such decision was abritrary, capricious or was based on no valid reasons. It is pertinent to note that no appointment was made from such list and before the City Civil Court also decision to cancel the select list is placed because of which no effective order is passed in the Civil Suit. In the opinion of this Court, it is difficult to hold that decision to scrap the list is taken arbitrarily, capriciously or for no valid reasons. It is also difficult to hold that such decision is taken in mala fide exercise of power. The then Deputy Chairman of the Board has filed the affidavit-in-reply and has narrated the circumstances under which such a decision was unanimously taken by the Board. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the decision to cancel the list was based on irrelevant or extraneous factors. Such a submission deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. ( 26 ) IN the result, petitions fail. Same are dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. .