JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has sought intervention of this Court by filing this writ petition on the plea that although he had been selected for appointment on the post of Conductor in the year 1984, the same has not yet been made effective. A little probe into the facts in this regard discloses that in the year 1984, applications were invited for the post of Conductors by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (shortly referred to as RSRTC) through the Regional Manager, in response to which the petitioner also had applied along with others. A committee for the required selection was constituted in the year 1984 for Alwar Region and the petitioner had been selected. Accordingly, his name was placed at Sr. No. 445A of the select list. This select list was thereafter sent to the Regional Manager, RSRTC, Jaipur who issued an order on 14.6.1985 directing the selected candidates to undergo special training. The petitioner was dismayed not to find his name in the list of persons who had to undergo the said training. The petitioner therefore represented to the concerned authorities in the RSRTC, who after examining the entire record accepted the plea of the petitioner 'regarding his selection in pursuance of employment notice No. 159/84. Consequently, a letter was sent by the Personnel Officer of the RSRTC regarding petitioner's selection and a direction for inclusion of his name in the list of selected candidates by letter dated 23.1.1985. The instructions contained in the said letter, however, were not carried out. It was, therefore, followed up by another letter of the Personnel Officer dated 5.8.1985 to the Regional Manager, Alwar. The Regional Manager, Alwar, this time, complied with the instructions and accordingly issued a letter dated 8.8.1985 to respondent No. 2, Regional Director, RSRTC advising him that the petitioner's name had found place in the selection list of the Alwar Region in the year 1984 and his name was transferred to Jaipur region for granting him an appointment on the post of Conductor. The photostat copies of these letters dated 5.8.1985 and 8.8.1985 have been annexed with the writ petition as Ex. 3 and Ex. 4. Surprisingly, these informations were not paid any heed and the petitioner was compelled to represent once again in the year 1986. The photostat copies of these letters dated 5.8.1985 and 8.8.1985 have been annexed with the writ petition as Ex. 3 and Ex. 4. Surprisingly, these informations were not paid any heed and the petitioner was compelled to represent once again in the year 1986. Fortunately, for the petitioner this was considered and a letter was sent to the Regional Director, RSRTC on 24.12.1986 that the petitioner is required to be given appointment on priority basis. The Regional Director, RSRTC this time again was defiant as he did not act upon even on the relevant. information which was supplied to him, but after a lapse of about five months an order was issued by respondent No. 2 on 8.5.1987 making his appointment for seven days in Delux Depot, Jaipur on the basis of the select list of the year 1984 of Alwar Region, in which the petitioner's position finds place at Sr. No. 445A. A photostat copy of this order/letter dated 24.12.1986 issued by the office of the Regional Director, RSRTC and the copy of the order dated 8.5.1987 has been annexed as a mark of proof in support of the averment of the petitioner. The petitioner's performance having been found satisfactory another order was issued on 2.7.1987. But surprisingly, the petitioner's appointment was made on daily wages on the post of Conductor in the Delux Depot, Jaipur, although his selection had been made against a sanctioned post on regular basis. The petitioner under compulsion of the circumstances even acquiesced with the appointment on daily wages, but only after a fortnight on 18.7.1987, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, although no order in writing was given to him. The petitioner again repeated his exercise of representing before the authority and also pointed out that persons who had been selected along with him by order dated 14.6.1985 were retained in service, whereas the petitioner has been kicked out of the job even on daily wages. The petitioner, thus, was compelled to move this Court finding no way out as his notice for demand of justice also went unreplied. 2. The legal pleas, therefore, which had been raised in support of the case of the petitioner, are quite plain and unambiguous which are two-fold. The petitioner, thus, was compelled to move this Court finding no way out as his notice for demand of justice also went unreplied. 2. The legal pleas, therefore, which had been raised in support of the case of the petitioner, are quite plain and unambiguous which are two-fold. It has first of all been contended that although he had been duly selected for the post of conductor on a sanctioned post, his name was arbitrarily left out in the list of candidates who had to be sent for the required training. It has further been contended that even if the petitioner's appointment be treated as on daily wages his services could not have been terminated as the persons junior to him have been regularised in service whereas the petitioner was left out. This, undoubtedly, was done adopting pick and choose method, thus, denying the claim of appointment of the petitioner who had been duly selected. 3. This Court having been prima facie satisfied about the plea of the petitioner issued a show cause notice to the respondents as far back as in the year 1990 on 15.5.1990 which was duly served on the respondents and the counsel also put in his appearance in support of this. But in spite of several opportunities having been granted to the respondents, no reply was filed controverting the facts stated by the petitioner. However, in course of hearing, it transpired that on one of the occasions, the petitioner's name was left out of the list of candidates and was not sent for training as the marks-sheet of the petitioner was not legible. But thereafter the petitioner produced a legible copy of his mark-sheet. Thereafter he was given an appointment which also stood cancelled only after 15 days without assigning any reason. The defiance of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner was sought to be explained by Shri Manish Bhandari by stating that in the year 1987, the services of a large number of conductors were dispensed with and order of retrenchment was passed. But in proof of this submission, no such order has been produced. It had been further submitted that a dispute of this nature ought to be sent before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Tribunal and this Court ought not to interfere as to whether the petitioner's services had been rightly dispensed with. But in proof of this submission, no such order has been produced. It had been further submitted that a dispute of this nature ought to be sent before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Tribunal and this Court ought not to interfere as to whether the petitioner's services had been rightly dispensed with. Lastly, it has been submitted that mere selection on a post does not give the right of appointment to a selected candidate and, in support of this submission, reliance has been placed on a constitution bench judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1991(3) SCC 47 in the matter of Shankar Sen Das v. Union of India . 4. The fact in so far as the selection of the petitioner on the post of conductor is concerned, the same has not been controverted and it could not be disputed that the petitioner in fact had been selected by the selection committee in response to the employment notice No. 159 for Alwar Region and his name had also been included at Sr. No. 445A of the select list which fact had been acknowledged by the Regional Manager as disclosed in the various letters referred to hereinabove. From these averments, therefore, it is quite clear that the petitioner, although, had been duly selected was denied appointment without any reason and in order to make up for the injustice, he had been given appointment on daily wages for only about a fortnight which too was terminated without assigning an reason. The plea of the petitioner, therefore, should not be examined, in my opinion, on the basis that his services ought to have been regularised as he was working on daily wages. The question which arises for consideration is squarely within the ambit as to whether.he should be denied appointment in respect of the vacancies having been advertised and in spite of his selection whether he could be denied appointment. The nature of the dispute, therefore, is purely regarding violation of the constitutional right and does not involve any dispute of fact and, therefore, the contention of the respondents that this matter may be left to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal, is fit to be rejected, the same being devoid of substance. 5. The nature of the dispute, therefore, is purely regarding violation of the constitutional right and does not involve any dispute of fact and, therefore, the contention of the respondents that this matter may be left to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal, is fit to be rejected, the same being devoid of substance. 5. In so far as the other substantial plea raised on behalf of the petitioner as to whether he has a right to be appointed after his selection on the post is concerned, it is no doubt true that the learned Judges of the Constitution Bench have been pleased to hold that even if a number of applications are invited for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies but the ratio of this judgment does not help the respondents on this point, as the learned Judges have been further pleased to hold that although the State, is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies, it does not mean that the State has a licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision, therefore, not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons and if the vacancy or any of them are filled, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates as reflected at the recruitment test and no discrimination can be permitted. The learned Judge, therefore, have clearly been pleased to hold that the decision not to fill up the vacancy has to be for appropriate reasons and not arbitrary. When the facts of the instant case are examined in the light of the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment (supra), it clearly transpires that the appointment had been denied to the petitioner without any justification whatsoever. Even the plea that the petitioner did not produce his marks-sheet which was legible, as given out earlier has been satisfactorily answered that the same had been produced to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. Even the plea that the petitioner did not produce his marks-sheet which was legible, as given out earlier has been satisfactorily answered that the same had been produced to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. The plea of the petitioner that he had been duly and legally selected has been acknowledged even by the RSRTC which got the entire record examined and found that the petitioner had been selected in pursuance of the employment notice No. 159/84 and only thereafter a letter was sent by the Personnel Officer of the RSRTC dated 23.1.1985 vide Ex. 1, wherein it had been directed that the petitioner's name should be included in the list of selected candidates, dated 14.6.1985. Even thereafter the Regional Manager, Alwar had issued a letter dated 8.8.1985 to the Regional Manager, RSRTC, Jaipur for granting appointment to the petitioner on the post of Conductor. The said letters are 5.8.95 and 8.8.95 marked as Ex. 3 and Ex. 4 to the writ petition. The respondents have not been able to give justification why the petitioner's name was left out in spite of valid instructions and the plea that an order of retrenchment had been passed in the year 1987 cannot be accepted as the persons who had been selected vide the selection list dated 14.6.1985 are still in service. One such name is of Shri Subhash Ram Yadav son of Payrelal. It, therefore, does not stand to reason why the petitioner alone should have been singled out for the purpose of retrenchment. The respondent, RSRTC, therefore, have clearly erred, in my opinion, in justifying the denial of appointment to the petitioner, more so as their own Personnel Officer had been writing constantly for appointment of the petitioner which was arbitrarily not given effect to. 6. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the respondent is directed to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner on the post of conductor within a period of four weeks on production of receipt of this order. The prayer, however, for treating the petitioner in continuous service on the post of conductor is refused. But since the appointment had been refused to him without any justification whatsoever, I consider it appropriate to award him the cost of this litigation which is assessed at As. 5,000/-, which shall be paid by the respondent, RSRTC to the petitioner. The prayer, however, for treating the petitioner in continuous service on the post of conductor is refused. But since the appointment had been refused to him without any justification whatsoever, I consider it appropriate to award him the cost of this litigation which is assessed at As. 5,000/-, which shall be paid by the respondent, RSRTC to the petitioner. The RSRTC will be at liberty to fasten this liability on the officer concerned who was holding the post of Regional Manager. RSRTC, at the relevant time in the year 1984 and realise the amount from him. 7. The writ petition is, thus, allowed with costs as indicated above.Writ Petition Allowed. *******