Honble PRASAD, J.–The petitioners, three in number, applied for being selected on the post of teachers in pursuance to the advertisement No. 92(1) issued by the Zila Parishad, Bikaner and published in the daily news-paper ``Rajasthan Patrika in its edition dated 6.6.1992. By virtue of this advertisement, 386 posts of teachers were advertised with the connotation attached to it that the number of posts can be increased or decreased. The petitioners were placed at merit numbers 384, 410 and 419 shown in the Merit List. (2). The case of the petitioners is that apart from 386 posts advertised vide advertisement Annexure 1, there was an increase in the number of posts which was made vide Annexure 5 dated 15. 4.93 and since the increase in the number of the posts of teachers was made during the academic year 1992-93 which was to expire in the month of May, 1993, therefore, the case of the petitioners should have been considered for 386 posts already advertised plus the posts increased by the order Annexure 5 and if these increased number of posts are taken into consideration then the petitioners have got a right to be considered for appointment because they fall within the zone of the posts available with the respondents. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a case : Union of India vs. Ishwar Singh & Ors. (1) and it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the persons in the list have been held by the Honble Supreme Court to have possessed the right to be appointed. While reading the case cited hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioners, also, read the provision wherein it has been provided that all the persons in the list will be provided appointment. When asked whether any such provision exists in the present set of advertisement or the rules, learned counsel for the petitioners frankly admitted that no such provision exists in the present advertisement or the rules. When asked whether any such provision exists in the present set of advertisement or the rules, learned counsel for the petitioners frankly admitted that no such provision exists in the present advertisement or the rules. Another case relied-upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is a case: Uma Kant vs. Bhika Lal Jain (2) whereby the Honble Supreme Court has held that a practice which has been invouge for a long to appoint persons from the Reserved List would not be disturbed by the court and on the strength of this ratio, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that if the persons are appointed from the reserved list then the petitioner No. 1, who has his merit at serial number 384, had a right to be appointed for 386 posts which were advertised and atleast his case should have been considered by the respondents for appointment to the post in question. (3). The respondents have put-in appearance and it has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that while the selection process was continuing in pursuance to the advertisement Annexure 1, the posts were reduced and since the posts were reduced, therefore, they could not make appointments on the posts as given and until the Merit List remained operative, they made only 380 appointments because that was the requirement of the Department because the department has reserved the right by making it aware to the persons like the petitioners that the number of the posts advertised by them (i.e. 386 posts) is not a sacrosanct number and the same is liable to be increased or decreased and, thus the petitioners did not get any indefeasible right to be appointed as no person lower in merit than the petitioners has been given appointment. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the selection process was closed in the year 1993 itself and the merit list expired with the end of the academic session in the year 1993 while the writ petition has been filed in the year 1994. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the selection process was closed in the year 1993 itself and the merit list expired with the end of the academic session in the year 1993 while the writ petition has been filed in the year 1994. In the year 1994 when the writ petition was filed, they had no subsisting right and in terms of the decision given by the Honble Supreme Court reported in : State of U.P. vs. Haris Chanda (3), even the High Court has no power to extend the life of the merit list which expired in the year 1993 and on the date when the writ petition was filed, the merit list was not operative. Learned counsel for the respondents has further relied-upon a case decided by the Honble Supreme Court and reported in : Prem Singh & Ors. vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. (4) in which it has been held that the appointment could be made only for the posts which were advertised or anticipated at the time when the posts were advertised. According to him, the future creation of the posts does no give right to the petitioners to be considered for appointment on the posts in question. Here is the case where the petitioners seek that their case should be considered against the vacancies created by Annexure 5, which cannot be considered because these posts were created subsequent to the advertisement and they cannot be taken note of. (4). I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (5). The petitioners have no indefeasible right to be appointed merely because their names find mention in the Merit List. Here, two of the petitioners have their merit numbers at 410 and 419. That being the position, their merit number exceed the posts advertised and they can be said to be in the Reserved List. the candidates in the reserved list have no right unless the regular merit list is exhausted. The Select List was not operated in its entirety and, therefore, these two petitioners standing at merit number 410 and 419 have got no right to be appointed. So far as the petitioner, whose merit stands at serial number 384, is concerned, he cannot be considered for appointment because the respondents have given appointment to the persons standing upto merit number 380. So far as the petitioner, whose merit stands at serial number 384, is concerned, he cannot be considered for appointment because the respondents have given appointment to the persons standing upto merit number 380. It was given out boldly in the advertisement itself that the number of the posts can be increased or decreased. The number of posts advertised were 386 and only 380 candidates were given appointment. They were not given the appointments for administrative reasons and it was communicated to the petitioners in the advertisement itself. The further appointments were not given, also, in view of Annexure R. 1 which shows that there are sixty-two surplus teachers. If the respondents have come with this stand that they had already sixty-two surplus teachers at the relevant time then it cannot be said that not giving appointment to 386 persons is an arbitrary, discriminatory or hostile act of the respondents. The action of the respondents, not being arbitrary or discriminatory, cannot be interferred with at this stage when the whole selection process is closed. (6). Learned counsel for the petitioners has, also, argued that if the number given by the respondents in reply is taken to be correct then the number of posts will be reduced to 280 only and then how the appointments were given to 380 candidates. For that, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents have not given any reasons. The petitioners have not challenged the factum of giving appointment to 100 more persons and, therefore, this argument cannot be considered and decided. The argument, being devoid of merit, is unsustainable. (7).For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.