JUDGMENT 1. - The principal short question that falls for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether appointment on the posts of Lecturer in Geography for College Education in excess of the number of posts advertised is permissible? In other words, whether the equality clauses contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is infringed if recruitment is made from the reserve list on more posts which became available after the date of the advertisement? 2. The factual position, at a glance, as disclosed by the materials produced before this Court is : the Director-Education, Rajasthan, vide his communication dated August 8, 1995 had sent a requisition to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'Commission') for selecting suitable candidates to fill up 25 vacancies of College Lecturers in Geography. In these posts, 12 posts were of the year 1994-95 and the remaining 13 posts were of the year 1955-96. Out of them 4 posts were reserved for the members of Scheduled Castes, 3 for Scheduled Tribes and 5 for Other Backward Classes. On receipt of the requisition, the Commission issued and published an advertisement, dated 8.11.1995, inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the vacancies and last date for receipt of applications was fixed as November 30 1995. Pursuant to the above advertisement, 188 candidates had applied, out of them, on scrutiny, 117 candidates were found eligible to be called for the interviews. Before the interviews were held and selections were made, an additional list of 13 vacancies was further intimated vide communication, dated 12.2.1996, by the Director-Education to the Commission as per the proviso to Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986'). Thereafter, interviews of the candidates were held from 15.4.1996 to 18.4.1996 and a select list of 38 candidates, as per the requisitions were prepared in order of merit by the Commission and the same was forwarded to the Government vide letter dated 9.5.1996. The Commission had also prepared a reserve list of 38 candidates as provided in Rule 30. As per select list, the Director-Education appointed 37 persons as College Lecturers in Geography vide order dated 1.7.1996. The Commission had also prepared a reserve list of 38 candidates as provided in Rule 30. As per select list, the Director-Education appointed 37 persons as College Lecturers in Geography vide order dated 1.7.1996. From reply of the State Government it further transpires that four more persons from the reserve list were given appointment vide order 3.7.1996 which occurred due to non-joining of the appointees of the year 1995. Apprehending further appointments from the reserve list to fill up other vacancies, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, in which the principal prayer is to restrain the State Government from making further appointment(s) from the reserve list in excess to the posts for which selections were held. 3. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel on both sides, it would be convenient to refer necessary provisions of the Rules of 1986 which govern and regulate recruitment to the posts in question. As per the Rules, appointment of College Lecturers is 100% by direct recruitment. Rule 28 provides that appointment to posts in the service by direct recruitment of selection shall be made by the Government on occurrence of vacancies from time to time, as may be determined by the Government. Part IV in the Rules deals and prescribes the procedure for direct recruitment. Rules 16 and 20 which are relevant for our purpose, are as under "16. Inviting of Application-Applications for direct recruitment to D posts in the service shall be invited by the Commission by advertising the vacancies to be filled in the official Gazette or in such other manner as may be deemed fit. Provided that while selecting candidates for the vacancies so advertised, the Commission may if intimation of additional requirement 5 not exceeding 50% of the advertised vacancies is received by them before selection, also select suitable persons to meet such additional requirement." "20. Recommendation of the Commission-The Commission shall prepare a list of candidates, whom they consider suitable for D appointment to the posts concerned, arranged in order of merit and then the Commission shall forward the list to the Government Provided that the Commission may also to the extent of 100% of the vacancies finally intimated before the selection keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The Commission may on requisition, 5 recommend the name of such candidates in order of merit to the Government within twelve months from the date of which the original list if forwarded by the Commission to the Government." 4. It was contended by Shri S.C. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that selection of suitable persons is made as per Rule 16 to fill up the vacancies advertised and vacancies' of additional requirement not exceeding 50% of the advertised posts; if requisition is received by the Commission before selection. A list of candidates considered suitable for appointment to the posts concerned, arranged in order of merit, is prepared by the Commission and the said list is forwarded to the Government for s making appointments. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the list of selected candidates is to fill up the vacancies finally intimated to the Commission before selections are made and the list forwarded to the Government for making the appointment. Counsel further contended that the Commission may also prepare a reserve list of suitable candidates to the extent of 100% of the vacancies finally intimated before the selection and such reserve list has a life of 12 months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government. Thus, according to the learned counsel, appointments can be made to the extent of select list prepared under Rule 16 and no further vacancy, in excess of the number of vacancies described in Rule 16 can be filled up even from the reserve list. Any such appointment on an additional vacancy would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since every one is entitled to claim consideration for appointment to a post under the State. This is the import and impact of the rules concerned. 5. For the reserve list it was contended that it is prepared to ensure that the working in that office does not suffer if the selected candidates do not join for one or the other reason. But once selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation or for any other till the life period of such reserve list, a candidate from the said list has no right to claim appointment to any additional vacancy. But once selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation or for any other till the life period of such reserve list, a candidate from the said list has no right to claim appointment to any additional vacancy. In the instant case, learned counsel contended, selections were made for 38 posts i.e. 25 advertised posts plus 13 additional posts intimated to the Commission before selection under the proviso to Rule 16. The State Government, therefore, was not competent to fill up more than 38 vacancies for which selections were made, otherwise the action shall be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, Mr. Mridul, learned Senior Advocate, vehemently contended that selection of candidates in excess of the number of posts advertised and additional posts intimated to the Commission before selection, does not per se offend the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that process of selection is a time consuming process and it is permissible to the Department to take into consideration, the additional requirement of the posts so that teaching of the students may not suffer. Learned counsel contended that the Court should not ignore the realities and it should adopt a pragmatic approach and refrain from restraining the State Government from making appointment. The reserve list in the instant case is valid for a period of 12 months from the date of forwarding the original list prepared under Rule 16. The reserve list prepared under the proviso to Rule 20, learned counsel contended, cannot be equated with a waiting list meant for a limited purpose to make appointment of a candidate from the said list, in order of merit, if one or the other selected candidate does not join or a vacancy arises due to resignation of a selected candidate or for any other reason within the period the list operates. The reserve list prepared under proviso to rule 20 under Part IV of the Rules is meant to make appointments against additional vacancies arising on account of resignation, retirement or promotion during the validity period of the reserve list. Similar procedure has been adopted it all other departments and appointment of the candidates from the reserve list have been made to fill up additional vacancy i.e. vacancies in excess for which selections are made. Similar procedure has been adopted it all other departments and appointment of the candidates from the reserve list have been made to fill up additional vacancy i.e. vacancies in excess for which selections are made. In support of this contention strong reliance is placed on a three-Judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Uma Kant Sharma etc. v. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain & others : UJ (SC) 1992 (1) 134. Lastly it was contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, who has taken a chance to be selected by participating in selection process. He cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process in which he was found to be unsuitable. 6. I gave my careful consideration to the respective contentions. In my opinion, there is no substance in the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner. In the instant case, the petitioner is not challenging the selection process and his grievance relates to making of appointments in excess to the posts for which selections were made. He can have a just grievance that due to any such appointment he will be deprived of the right of consideration for the additional vacancies. Learned counsel is right in his contention that if fresh selection process shall be taken for additional vacancies, the petitioner shall have a right to apply and participate in it. He, therefore, can maintain this petition to challenge such appointment to additional vacancies for which selection process was not undertaken. 7. Before I deal with the principal question involved in the petition, I would like to consider the object and use of the reserve list prepared under the proviso to Rule 20. The question that calls for consideration is as to whether this reserve list can be treated as a source of recruitment from which candidates may be drawn as and when necessary till the list survives? 8. It is, no doubt, true that recruitment rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India regulate appointments and the conditions of service and such rules have to be followed strictly and not in its breech. 8. It is, no doubt, true that recruitment rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India regulate appointments and the conditions of service and such rules have to be followed strictly and not in its breech. The reserve/waiting list prepared in the service matters by the competent authority is nothing but a list of eligible and qualified candidates who in the order of merit are placed below the list of selected candidates. Its nature and operation may be governed by the Rules. Usually it is linked with the selection for which it is prepared. 9. Such lists are prepared mainly to meet the contingency if the selected candidates do not join for one or the other reason. But it cannot operate as a source of appointment to fill up the vacancies which were not notified for the selection. In Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association v. State of Gujarat & others : 1994 Supp (II) SCC 591 a similar question arose for consideration. What is a waiting list and whether it can be treated as a source of recruitment till it is exhausted or remains in life? Though this question was examined in the context of the relevant service Rules, the following observations made by the Apex Court are of general application wherein it has been observed : "A waiting list prepared in service matter by the competent authority is a list of eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit and placed to below the last selected candidate. How it should operate and what is its nature may be governed by the rules. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the competent authority prepares a waiting list then it is in respect of those 10 seats only for which selection or competition was held. Reason for it is that whenever selection is held, except where it is for single post, it is normally held by taking into account not only the number of vacancies existing on the date when advertisement is issued or application are invited but even those which are likely to arise in future within one year of so due to retirement etc. It is more so where selections are held regularly by the Commission. It is more so where selections are held regularly by the Commission. Such lists are prepared either under the rules or even otherwise mainly to ensure that the working in the office does not suffer if the selected candidates do not join for one or the other reason or the next selection or examination is not held soon. A candidate in the waiting list in that order of merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one or other selected candidate does not join. But once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason within the period the list is to operate under the rules or within reasonable period where no specific period is provided then candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was held for it. He has no vested right except to the limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous reasons." (Emphasis provided). The following observations made therein are also relevant "A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed .in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does no appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service." 10. After going through the rules and taking into consideration the entire scheme relating to the procedure for direct recruitment, particularly Rules 16 and 20, I am 'not in agreement with the contention made by Shri Mridul that the reserve list prepared under the proviso to Rule 20 is different from a waiting list which is usually prepared to meet the contingency if selected candidates do not join for one or the other reason or a vacancy is created by resignation of those or any of them within life time of the list. Simply because the list is prepared to the extent of 100% of the vacancies finally intimated before the selection and such reserved list remains valid for 12 months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government, no such inference can be drawn that such list is intended to make appointment as and when a future vacancy is available till the list is exhausted or its life period expires. 11. Now, turning to the main question, it shall be fruitful to refer some decisions of the Supreme Court as this question has been considered by it form time to time. 12. In Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana and others : 1993 Supp (4) SCC 377: JT 1993 (5) SC 63 ; a requisition was sent to select candidates for appointment on 6 posts of Inspector of Police, but subsequently a revised requisition for 8 posts was sent prior to physical test and interview. The Selection Board recommended 19 names out of which 18 persons were given appointment. The High Court held the appointments beyond 8 posts to be illegal. On appeal, against the decision of the High Court the Supreme Court also held that since requisition was for 8 posts. The Selection Board recommended 19 names out of which 18 persons were given appointment. The High Court held the appointments beyond 8 posts to be illegal. On appeal, against the decision of the High Court the Supreme Court also held that since requisition was for 8 posts. the Board was required to send its recommendation for 8 posts only, observing thus "The appointment on the additional posts on the basis of such selection and recommendation would deprive candidates who were not eligible for appointment to the posts on the last date for submission of applications mentioned in the advertisement and who became eligible for appointment thereafter, of the opportunity of being considered for appointment on the additional posts because of the said additional posts are advertised subsequently those who become eligible for appointment would be entitled to apply for the same. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the selection of 19 persons by the Board even though the requisition was for 8 posts only, was not legally sustainable." 13. In State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan and others : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 308 : JT 1993 (Supp) SC 198; 32 vacancies were advertised but a select list of 129 candidates was prepared. A question arose whether after appointment of 32 candidates as per the advertisement, more persons could be appointed from the select list. The Supreme Court held that once 32 advertised vacancies were filled up the process of selection for those 32 vacancies got exhausted and came to end. It was further held that if the same list has to be kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up other vacancies also that would naturally amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who became eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and selection process. To fill up other vacancies a fresh advertisement has to be issued. Similar question came for consideration in Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others : (1995) 3 SCC 486 : AIR 1995 SC 1088 . In that case requisition and advertisement was for 11 vacancies but the J & K Public Service Commission prepared a merit list of 20 candidates. Similar question came for consideration in Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others : (1995) 3 SCC 486 : AIR 1995 SC 1088 . In that case requisition and advertisement was for 11 vacancies but the J & K Public Service Commission prepared a merit list of 20 candidates. The Supreme Court held that the action of the Commission in preparing and sending merit list of 20 candidates by itself was not bad but at the time of giving actual appointments the merit list had to be so operated that only vacancies were filled up. The reason given this was as the requisition was for vacancies, the second advertisement and recruitment could also be for 11 vacancies and no more. It was observed as under "It is easy to visualise that if requisition is for 11 vacancies and that results in the initiation of recruitment process by way of advertisement, whether the advertisement mentions filling up of 11 vacancies or not, the prospective candidates can easily find out from the office of the Commission that the requisition for the proposed recruitment is for filling up 11 vacancies. In such a case given candidate may not like to compete for diverse reasons but if requisition is for larger number of vacancies for which recruitment is initiated he may like to compete. Consequently the actual appointments to the posts have to be confined to the posts for recruitment to which requisition is sent by the Government. In such an eventuality, candidates in excess of 11 who are lower in the merit list of candidates in order of merit to fill only the eleven vacancies for which recruitment has been made, in the event of any higher candidate not being available to fill the 11 vacancies, for any reason. Once the 11 vacancies are filled by candidates taken in order of merit from the select list that list will get exhausted, having served its purpose." 14. Once the 11 vacancies are filled by candidates taken in order of merit from the select list that list will get exhausted, having served its purpose." 14. The Supreme Court also considered the impact of the relevant rule which was as under "Security of the list-The list and the waiting list of the selected candidate shall remain in operation for a period of one year from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette or till it is exhausted by appointment of the candidates whichever is earlier, provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to the list and waiting list prepared as a result of the examination held in 1981 which will remain in operation till the list or the waiting list is exhausted." 15. Rejecting the argument that more vacancies arising during the life time of the list, could be filled up, the Court observed thus "A mere look: at the rule shows that pursuant to the requisition to be forwarded by the Government to the Commission for initiating the recruitment process, if the Commission has preparea merit list and waiting list of selected candidates such list will have a life of one dear from the date of publication in Government Gazette or till it is exhausted by the appointment of candidates, whichever is earlier. This means that if requisition is for filing up of 11 vacancies. and it does net include any anticipated vacancies, the recruitment to be initiated by the Commission could be for selecting 11 suitable candidates. The Commission may be abundant caution prepare a merit list of 20 or even 30 candidates as per their inter se ranking on merits. But such a merit list will have a maximum life of one year from the date of publication or till all the required appointments are made whichever event happened earlier. It means that if requisition for recruitment is for 11 vacancies and the merit list prepared is for 20 candidates, the moment 11 vacancies are filled in from the merit list the list gets exhausted, or if during the span of one year from the date of publication of such list all the 11 vacancies are not filled in, the moment the year is over the list gets exhausted. In either event, thereafter if further vacancies are to be filled in or remaining vacancies are to be filled in. In either event, thereafter if further vacancies are to be filled in or remaining vacancies are to be filled in. after one year, a fresh process of recruitment is to be initiated giving ,a fresh opportunity to all the open market candidates to compete. This is thrust of rude 41. is in consonance with the settled legal position as we will presently see. We cannot agree with the learned counsel for respondents that during the period of one year if all the 11 vacancies are filled in for which requisition is initiated by the State in the present case and if some more vacancies arise during one year, the present list can still be operated upon because the Commission has sent the list of 20 selected candidates. As discussed above, the- candidates standing at serial Nos. 12 to 20 in the list can be considered only in case within one year of its publication, all the 11 vacancies do not get filled up for any reason in such a case only this additional list of selected candidates would serve as a reservoir from which meritorious suitable candidates can be drawn in order of merit to fill up the remaining requisitioned and advertised vacancies, out of the total 11 vacancies. If that cannot be done for any reason within one year of the publication of the list, even this reservoir will dry up and the entire list will get exnausted.' 16. In a later decision in Prem Singh and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and others (JT 1996 (5) SC 219) ; 62 posts were advertised but appointment were made on 138 posts. While starting selection process for 62 clear vacancies anticipated vacancies were not taken into account. It was held that strictly speaking, the Board was not justified in making more than 62 appointments pursuant to the advertisement. but as the Board could have taken in account not only the actual vacancies but also vacancies which were likely to arise because of retirement etc. by the time the selection process was completed, it would not be just and equitable to invalidate all appointments made on posts in excess of 62 posts. However appointments which were made against future vacancies were held to be invalid. by the time the selection process was completed, it would not be just and equitable to invalidate all appointments made on posts in excess of 62 posts. However appointments which were made against future vacancies were held to be invalid. The law on the point was stated as under- "From the above discussion of the case law it becomes clear that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies but not for future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement are for certain number of posts only the State cannot make more appointments than the number of pots advertised even though it might have prepared a select list of more candidates the State deviate from the advertisement and make appointment on posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf." 17. In Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others : AIR 1996 SC 976 the law on the Point has again been reiterated as under- "Article 14 read with Article 16;1; of the Constitution enshrine fundamental right to every citizen to claim consideration for appointment to a post under the State. Therefore vacant posts arising or expected should be notified inviting applications from ail eligible candidates to be considered for their selection in accordance with their merit. The recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The procedure adopted, therefore, in appointing the persons kept in the waiting list by the respective Boards, though the vacancies had arisen subsequently without being notified for recruitment, is unconstitutional.' 18. Applying the ratio of the above decisions on the facts of the present case, it would be seen that in the present case, process of selection was for 38 vacancies and a select list of 38 candidates was prepared for appointment to the said posts which was forwarded by the Commission to the State Government. The select list was prepared as per rule 16 read with Rule 20. Hence, after making appointments on 38 posts the list stood exhausted. The select list was prepared as per rule 16 read with Rule 20. Hence, after making appointments on 38 posts the list stood exhausted. The reserve list could be operated for a limited purpose if selected candidates fail to join for one reason or the other or resign in the lifetime of the reserve list but it cannot be used to fill up fresh vacancies during one year as contended by Shri Mridul and Smt. Shashi Jain. 19. The decision in Dr. Umakant etc. v. Bhika Lal Jain & others' case (supra) strongly relied upon by Shri Mridul and Smt. Shashi Jain, may now be considered. The facts in that case were that University of Rajasthan invited applications for the post of Professor in the Department of Botany. There was only one post. The Selection Committee held interviews and selected Dr. G.S. Nathawat for the post. The name of Dr. Uma Kant was mentioned in the reserve list. The Syndicate approved the list and appointed Dr. Nathawat on the said post. Dr nathawat retired on 30th September in the same year and Dr. Uma Kant, who was already selected and kept in the reserve list was appointed as Professor in the Department of Botany. The persons who were not selected filed a writ petition' in the High Court of Rajasthan. initially challenging the appointment of Dr. Nathawat on the ground that the Selection Committee was not validly constituted. Dr. Uma Kant was subsequently impleaded as respondent and his appointment was challenged on the plea that once a selected person joined the post, the reserve list exhausted itself. The appointment of Dr. Uma Kant was defended on the ground that it was within life time of the extended period of reserve list. The learned Single Judge invalidated the appointment of Dr. Uma kant holding that once a person selected by the Selection Committee has been appointed the reserve list could not be operated against a further vacancy. The Division Bench also upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court Dr. Uma Kant as well as University of Rajasthan approached the Supreme Court in appeal by way of special leave. The Division Bench also upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court Dr. Uma Kant as well as University of Rajasthan approached the Supreme Court in appeal by way of special leave. In that case there was a resolution of the Syndicate providing as under "I. Every Section Committee may draw a Reserve List of suitable candidates upto a number not exceeding 50% of the number of post for which vacancies exist (part vacancy be rounded of to the next whole number) and place them in order of priority. II. The Reserve List of drawn be treated valid upto six months the date of approval by the Syndicate of the recommendations of the Selection Committee(s). III. On the vacancies caused within the cadre during six months of the approval of the recommendations, the candidates found suitable and placed in the reserve list be appointed in the order of priority given by Selection Committee." 20. The Supreme Court taking into consideration the above resolution and other facts and circumstances, including that there was a procedure in vogue in all the Universities of Rajasthan to use the reserve list for the appointment on the vacant post caused during the validity period of the reserve list and numerous appointments have been made in last decade from the reserve list set-aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and appointment of Dr. Uma Kant was held to be valid. In the case of Dr. Uma Kant Selection Committee had prepared the reserve list on 20th June, 1989 which was valid for 12 months and Dr. Nathawat, the selected candidate was retiring on 30th September, 1989 itself and there was Resolution of the Syndicate. In these circumstances it was held by the Supreme Court. "In our view the High Court was wrong in taking the view that a regular vacancy of Professor having arisen on the retirement of Dr. G.S. Nathawat on 30th September, 1989 again a fresh Selection Committee should have been constituted and no appointment on such post could have been made from the reserve list prepared by the Selection Committee on 20th June, 1989." It was then observed : "In the present case, Dr. G.S. Nathawat on 30th September, 1989 again a fresh Selection Committee should have been constituted and no appointment on such post could have been made from the reserve list prepared by the Selection Committee on 20th June, 1989." It was then observed : "In the present case, Dr. G.S. Nathawat was selected on 20th June, 1989 and was going to retire on 30th September, 1989 and in these circumstances, it was perfectly valid to select one more person and to keep him in the reserve list for being appointed on the regular vacancy which was shortly anticipated on account of retirement of Dr. Nathawat. The High Court committed a clear error in restricting the scope of reserve list only against the post for which the selection was made and which according to the High Court could only be available to the incumbent in the reserve list if the person recommended in the main list did not join that post. Such interpretation is not borne out from any of the provisions of Section 3(1), Section 5 or sub-s. (4) of Section 6 of the Act of 1974." 21. In my view. the above decisions has been given in the facts and circumstances of that case and learned counsel for the respondents or the interveners cannot take any benefit from the said decision when the law on the point has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that appointments in excess to the vacancies for which process of selection has started cannot be made from the candidates in the reserve list and list cannot be treated as a source of recruitment for additional vacancies. 22. The resultant effect of the above discussions is that this petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. The respondents are restrained from making further appointments from the reserve list. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition allowed. *******