JUDGMENT : A. Chakrabarti, J. This writ petition was filed claiming issuance of appointment letters to the Petitioners being in the select list finalised on 31.5.1989. 2. The case as made out in the writ petition, inter alia, is that against an advertisement inviting applications for filling up posts of conductors, Petitioners " applied whereupon tests were held on 16.4.1989 and interview was held during the period from 22.5.1989 to 25.5.1989. A select list/panel was finalised by the Selection Committee on 31.5.1989. There were 228 candidates in general category and 174'candidates in the reserved categories in the said list. Petitioners were at serial Nos. 201, 208, 212, 213, 217, 220 and 227. Appointment letters were issued to some selected candidates and 178 candidates were appointed in general category and 173 from the reserved categories which included 60 against backward castes. 102 against scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and 12 against freedom fighters quota. Petitioners contend that although they were placed in the select list, compiled with formalities Including deposit of security money of Rs. 1.000 and undergoing training of one week, they have not been appointed. 3. The Respondents contested the proceeding filing counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit. The main contentions in the counter-affidavit against the Petitioners' claim are that the select list of 402 candidates was published on 30.5.1989 which included 228 candidates in general category, 60 backward castes, 102 scheduled castes. 4 scheduled tribes, two disabled persons, one dependant of ex-service man and 5 dependants of freedom fighters. 178 candidates were appointed from general category, 59 from backward castes, 102 from Scheduled castes. 4 from scheduled tribes, two from disabled persons, one from dependants of ex-service man and 5 from dependants of freedom fighters. As Petitioners No. 1 to 7 were at serial numbers after 201 in the general category they could not be given appointment as candidates from serial Nos. 1 to 178 had been taken. Though Petitioners along with other candidates were given short-term appointments on daily wages upto 31.12.1989, no further appointment could be given as ban was imposed. The Respondents contended that Petitioners' turn did not come up so long appointments were being given from the select list and thereafter the ban having been imposed, no further appointment could be given. The Respondents denied that the Petitioners have any right to get appointment by reason of their being included in the select list. 4. The Respondents contended that Petitioners' turn did not come up so long appointments were being given from the select list and thereafter the ban having been imposed, no further appointment could be given. The Respondents denied that the Petitioners have any right to get appointment by reason of their being included in the select list. 4. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, further details have been given Including the date of imposition of ban against fresh appointments on 20.1.1990 except for filling up the quota reserved for scheduled caste/scheduled tribes and accordingly circular was Issued by the Corporation on 20.1.1990. The ban was lifted by the State Government by circular dated 24.9.1990 making it clear that the ban Imposed against fresh appointments in public corporation would continue to operate. No person in the select list below the Petitioners has been given appointment and that the ban was imposed in view of overstaffing. Refusal of claims of similar candidates in other writ petition has been relied upon. The Petitioners filed rejoinder-affidavit reiterating their cases. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Parties agreed to final disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission as affidavits have been already exchanged. 6. The main contentions of the Petitioners are that the ban could not take away the rights of the Petitioners to be appointed once they have been included in the select list particularly the Petitioners have already complied with requisite formalities including the deposit of security amounts. In support of such contentions, the Petitioners' learned Counsel relied upon the law laid down in the case of Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Ors. v. U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow and Ors. (1991) 2 UPLBEC 796 and Ambrish Pal and Ors. v. Chairman, Gramin Bank Basti and Ors. (1994) 2 UPLBEC 792. The reliance was made on the case of Pradeep Kumar Mishra (supra) for the proposition that inspite of the ban, rights of the Petitioners continued even after the expiry of the life of the panel. The case of Ambrish Pal (supra) was relied upon for the proposition that in view of arbitrary action of the employers, the Petitioners are entitled to direction for appointment by the writ court. 7. The case of Ambrish Pal (supra) was relied upon for the proposition that in view of arbitrary action of the employers, the Petitioners are entitled to direction for appointment by the writ court. 7. On behalf of the Respondents, the learned Counsel argued that the judgment in the case of Pradeep Kumar Mishra (supra), relied upon by the Petitioners, does not apply in the present case as there is no vacancy available for the purpose of appointment of the Petitioners. in support of such contention, reliance was made on a statement made in the counter-affidavit disclosing facts. The learned Counsel for the Respondents further contended that mere inclusion of the names of the Petitioners in the select list did not create any right of the Petitioners as held in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 . It was further contended by the Respondents that the ban was still continuing and as such Petitioners could not be appointed. 8. Upon considering the respective contentions of both the parties, I find that the law laid down in the case of Pradeep Kumar Mishra (supra) was that rights already accruing in favour of selected candidates against vacancies occurring during the period of validity of the list shall not extinguish merely because appointments could not be made as a consequence of the ban imposed by the Government order. But, in the present case, the Respondents denied that any such vacancy occurred during the relevant period. Petitioners have also not disclosed any such material showing occurrence of vacancies. in the circumstances, there was no question of accrual of any right in favour of the Petitioners. Further, as the vacancies were not available, the law in the case of Ambrish Pal (supra) also does not apply. in the circumstances as aforesaid and in view of the fact that mere inclusion of the names in the select list does not create any right as has been held in the case of Shankarsan Dash (supra), the Petitioners have no legal right which could be urged in the present writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.