R. H. ZAIDI, J. Petitioners, who have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mainly prays for a writ, order or direc tion commanding the respondent to issue appointment letters in their favour for the post of clerk Grade II and Coin-cum-Note examiners Grade II (Gra duate) in pursuance of the select list in the year 1981 and not to appoint any person against the said posts till the petitioners are appointed. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that in the year 1980 the Reserve Bank of India published an advertisement for the posts of clerk Grade II/coin-cum-Note Examiner Grade II (Graduate ). As may as 300 vacancies of the said posts were advertised. Petitioners, who were qualified to be appointed on the said posts, applied for appointments. They were, thereafter required to appear in the written test and were ultimately declared successful in the same. They were also called for interview in the months of July/august, 1981. The inter view Board also found the petitioners suitable for the appointment on the said posts and recommended their names to be included in the select list. 3. Vide letter dated 10-12-1991 petitioners were informed that they were selected for appointment on the said posts, and their names were included in the waiting list. The names of the petitioner No. 1 was at serial number 299. The names of petitioner Mos. 2, 3 and 4 were at serial Nos. 425, 414 and 447 respectively. During the year 1982 out of 443 candidates, only 213 were appointed, although at the relevant time there existed more than 300 vacancies. Since the respondents have been giving assurance to the petitioners to appoint them, therefore, they did not agitate the matter before any court or authority. However, when the respondents have adopted the policy of pick and choose and started appointing candidate arbitrarily, petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suit No. 1504 of 1983 in the court of Munsif City, Kanpur and also prayed for grant of temporary injunction. Petitioner No. 1 was, however, thereafter advised to withdraw the suit and to file the present petition. However, when the respondents have adopted the policy of pick and choose and started appointing candidate arbitrarily, petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suit No. 1504 of 1983 in the court of Munsif City, Kanpur and also prayed for grant of temporary injunction. Petitioner No. 1 was, however, thereafter advised to withdraw the suit and to file the present petition. Respondents instead of appointing the petitioners and other candidates from the select list prepared in the year 1980, have made another advertisement and proceeded to prepare another waiting list in the year 1982, which was not only prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners, but void and illegal in the eyes of law, in as much as without exhausting select list prepared in the year 1980, it was not open to the respondent to prepare another select list, in view of previous practice, which was invogues since 1962 till 1980. The respondents were also stated to have made appointment of certain persons named in paragraph 10 in the year 1983 out of the select list of 1980 in totally arbitrary and illegal manner. It was further stated that since the respondent being an instrumentality of states was the state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has no right to act arbitrary in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Serve Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey and Sureya Narain Shukla, whose names figured at serial numbers 361 and 375 respectively in the select list were given appointments, wholly arbitrarily, ignoring the claim of the petitioners. Petitioners in brief contended that without exhaust ing the select list prepared in 1980 it was not open to the respondents either to prepare any other select list or to appoint any candidate out of turn and they are under law entitled to be appointed on the posts in question, but respon dents were acting wholly arbitrarily and instead of appointing them, were ap pointing the other persons, who are not legally entitled to be appointed. 4. In the counter affidavit of Sri M. R. Kamath filed on behalf the respondents firstly procedure of appointment through recruitment call written test interview etc. 4. In the counter affidavit of Sri M. R. Kamath filed on behalf the respondents firstly procedure of appointment through recruitment call written test interview etc. of the candidates, preparation of writing list and appoint ment of the candidates on the vacancy which arise during the course of year have been stated and it has been contended that the candidates whose names appeared en the waiting list have no right for appointment nor the said wait ing list can be construed as a commitment to offer an appointment. The fact regarding advertisement made for 300 posts including preparation of select list and entry of the petitioners name in the same, their placement as stated in the writ petition and the appointment of 213 candidates has been admitted. No specific reply with respect to the facts stated in paragraph Nos. 11 and 11 wherein institution of appointments of candidates after 1982 out of the select list of 1981-82 were given but only evasive and vague replies have been given. It has further been stated that Sri S. N. Shukla and Sri R. K. Pandey belonged to the category of Ex-servicemen and they were appointed in the said quota. In brief it was asserted that it was not necessary to make appointments without exhausting the select list prepared for the previous years. The facts stated in paragraph No. 13, in which paragraph 8 of the circular was quoted only a vague reply has been given. The respondents have thus asserted that they are not bound to appoint persons who were selected and whose names were entered in the select/waiting list prepared by them. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners the facts stated in the writ petition are reiterated and re-affirmed, in reply to the facts stated in the counter affidavit. The petitioners have in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder affidavit quoted and relied upon paragraph 8 of the circular and con tended that it was no where indicated in the said circular that the select list was valid only for a period of one year. On the other hand assurances of appointment was given to the candidates whose names were finally heard in the select list. On the other hand assurances of appointment was given to the candidates whose names were finally heard in the select list. It was also stated that even assuming without admitting that select list was for a period till 31-8-1982 as claimed by the respondents, there was no justification for them to make advertisement in the month of August, 1982. The petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit thus contended that it was obligatory upon the respondents after selecting the petitioners to consider them for appointment on the post in question particularity when numbers of posts were lying vacant &s it is evident from the fact that in the month of August, 1982 as many as 140 posts were advertised. The petitioners have also stated that the conducts of the respondents were apparently discriminatory and violative to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as they have adopted the policy of pick and choose and to appoint the candidates out of turn who were legally not entitled to be appointed it was further stated that Sri R. P. Pandey and Sri S. N. Shukla who were placed much below the peti tioners names in the waiting list, were illegally appointed by the respondents. The plea that they belonged to category of Ex-servicemen was totally miscon ceived inasmuch as in the advertisement in question no such category was notified nor any reservation for Ex-servicemen was provided for. It was stated that the writ petition was, therefore, liable to be allowed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the select list in question was prepared after the petitioners and other candidates were re quired to appear in the written test and interview. They were, therefore, in view of the commitment made by the respondents in the circular set out in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, which provides as under were bound to appoint the petitioners and others candidates on the select list, on the posts in question : Paragraph 8 : The candidates who are declared successful in the written test will be required to appear in the interview at Kanpur, such of the outstation candidates as may be called for interview will be reimburse Raili/bus fair at the rate fixed from time to time. The candidates finally selected place or waiting list and offered appointment as and when vacancies occurred. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to and relied upon the clause which provided for reservation in the advertisement in question which reads as under : "hindi "3rre%?r wr st3$facf srrfa, s^fai-T 3r3nf?r aft* fo^tt s^t^rf % fat? sflrer: 21% 5% afa 3% ftfarit STRICT 113t3$fa?r *nfa aft* argffaa srwrfa % awrtejrnf % faij srsjmfaer ftfaraf (flresft ftfarat sfwiftre *t% ) 63 afa 16 11" It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respon dents have acted wholly arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in appointing the candidates whose names were placed in the selection list much below the names of the petitioners. In August, 1982 they have illegally advertised vacancies/posts instead of appoint ing the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon Sri ,r. S. Mittal v. Union of India, JT 1995 (3) SC 417 :1995 (2} LBESR 402 (SC), in support of his contention and emphatically asserted that in any view of the matter the -respondents were obliged to consider the names of the petitioner for, regularisation before making appointment of any candidates placed below them in the select list or junior to them. He has also cited the instances of the persons whose names have been specifically mention ed in the paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 18 of the writ petition. On the other baud the learned counsel for the contesting respondent has urged the select list prepared in the year 1982 was valid only for a period of one year ending on 31st December, 1982. The respondents were thereafter not bound to appoint the candidates whose names were entered in the select list after the aforesaid period. Inclusion of the names of the candidates, in the select list cannot be construed to be a commitment to appoint them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon certain circulars, particularly circulars dated 15- 2-1977, 14-3-1974 and 31-7-1979 in support of his contention. 8. I gave my anxious consideration to the rival contentions made by the parties. 9. On behalf of the respondents it had not been disputed that 300 posts/vacancies were advertised by the respondents vide advertisement No. Kanpur-208-001. 8. I gave my anxious consideration to the rival contentions made by the parties. 9. On behalf of the respondents it had not been disputed that 300 posts/vacancies were advertised by the respondents vide advertisement No. Kanpur-208-001. In pursuance thereof the candidates who applied for their appointment were required to appear in the written test and interview and thereafter the select list in question was prepared wherein the names of peti tioners were shown at SI. Nos. 299, 522, 415 and 247 respectively. It had also not been disputed that the candidates whose names were admittedly placed in the select list below the names of the petitioners have also been appointed. It has also been admitted by the respondents in August 1982 as many as 180 posts/vacancies were advertised. From the aforesaid admitted facts it has proved that in the year 1981-82 there existed more than 300 vacan cies. Out of which only 213 candidates from the select list prepared in the year 1991 were appointed. The contention of the respondents that the peti tioners and other candidates could not be appointed for want of vacancies cannot be accepted. Further admittedly some of the candidates whose names were placed below the names of the petitioner in the select list have been ap pointed in the year 1983 out of the said select list. Their appointment is apparently arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No reasonable cause or, explanation has been given by respondents to justify the said appointments. In K. S. Mittals case (supra) it has been ruled by the Honble Supreme Court as under : "it is no doubt correct that a person of select panel has not vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected but he has a right to be considered for appointment, but at the same time the appointing authority cannot ignored the select panel or declined to make any appointment at its whims, when the per sons have been selected or Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then ordinarily there is no justification to ignore him for appoint ment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline the appoint ment of a person who is on the select panel. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline the appoint ment of a person who is on the select panel. In present case there has been a mere inaction on the part of the acute no reason whatsoever, not to at all and justifiable reason was given as to why the appointments were not available to the candidates expeditiously in accordance with law. The appointment should have been offered to Sri Murgod when. a reasonable time of avail ability of the vacancy and thereafter to the next candidates. The Central Government approach in this case was wholly un justified. " 10. In view of the aforesaid authortiativo pronounced by the Apex Court of the country I hold that it was obligatory upon the respondents to offer appointment and consider the petitioners for appointment on the post in question and the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is to the effect that the select list was valid only for a period ending 31st December, 1982 and thereafter the respondents were not obliged to make appointment is liable to be rejected. It is further held that there existed sufficient vacancies in Class III post as it is evident from the advertisement dated August 14, 1982 from August, 1982 till December 1982. There was sufficient time for the res pondents to adjust and absorb the candidates already selected and entered in the select list to appoint them and that it was not open to the respondents to appoint the persons out of turn arbitrarily by adopting pick and choose policy. 11. As pointed out above it would also not out of place to state as it is apparent from Clause VIII of the relevant circulars which provided that the candidates finally selected and placed on waiting list will be offered appoint ment as and when vacancies occurred. It was not open to the contesting res pondents to give preference to the persons of their choice and from outside the select list when all the candidates who were duly selected and whose names appeared on the select list were already available for appointment on the post in question. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion, writ petition succeeds and is allow ed with cost. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion, writ petition succeeds and is allow ed with cost. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners on the posts of clerk Grade II/coin-cum-Note Examiner Grade II (Graduate) in pursuance of select panel list 1981 and not to appoint any other person until the said list is exhausted. Petitioners shall also be entitled to their seniority and other benefit in accordance with service rules, from the date they were entitled to be appointed. Petition allowed. .