JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal arises out of the judgment given by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.2.1996 dismissing the writ petition holding that the petitioner only figured in the panel, no one junior to the petitioner on the list has been appointed and further, fresh advertisement not having been issued during the currency of the panel, the writ petitioner could not make out any case for interference. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. 2. The petitioner's case in the writ petition was that the petitioner has studied upto 11th Class and knows typing which is requisite qualification for being appointed as Lower Division Clerk under the Rajasthan Subordinate Court (Ministerial Staff) Rules, 1986 (referred to hereinafter as the Rules of 1986). The petitioner was given a temporary appointment on 25.8.1994 vide Annex. 1. On 15.12.1994 a notification was issued whereby 17 posts of Lower Division Clerks were advertised. The notification is produced as Annex. 2. The petitioner appeared in the examination conducted in pursuance to the said notification. After the examination and typing test, a list was prepared of 62 candidates as having been successful in the test. Out of this list, 17 persons were appointed. Consequent to the appointment of these 17 persons, the petitioner's service was dispensed with as he was only a temporary employee. The further case of the petitioner is that out of 17 persons in whose favour the appointment orders were issued, two persons have either not joined or have left the service and, therefore, 17 vacancies advertised have not been filled in. The petitioner further avers that he has learnt that after advertisement of 17 vacancies, few more vacancies have come into existence. According to the petitioner, the panel was prepared on 28.2.1995 and its life was upto 27.2.1996 and, therefore, the vacancies coming into existence or having existed during this intervening period are to be filled in from amongst the persons whose names have been included in the panel. 3. On the aforesaid facts the petitioner has claimed that since he is shown at S. No. 19 and 17 posts advertised have not been filled in because two persons have either not joined or have left the service; with the occurrence of these vacancies, the petitioner should have been offered appointment and he has not been offered appointment during the currency of the panel. Though in the writ petition the petitioner has vaguely hinted and averred that wo persons have either not joined or have left the service, therefore, two vacancies have occurred but no definite case has been made out as to on which particular vacancy the petitioner has laid his claim. learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the Court may examine the record of selection which was consequently examined and it was found that appointments upto S. No. 18 in the list were given. This was because two vacancies became available. One of them was given to candidate at S. No. 18 and another was given to one Neeraj Kumar under the orders of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 970/1995. Thus, the two vacancies regarding which the petitioner has made a reference were filled in from their aforesaid panel and there was no vacancy available with the answering respondents which could be offered to the petitioner. learned counsel for the petitioner further raised the point by saying that some vacancies arose due to transfer and deputation. The respondents admitted that there was one deputation and two cases were of transfer. Out of these three, two persons joined back and one such vacancy remained unfilled. But such vacancy was not the vacancy which could be offered to the petitioner as the same did not come within the definition of the advertised vacancy or anticipated vacancy. The advertisement was issued with clear and unambiguous terms that there are 17 vacancies which are offered and it was expected that some more vacancies may arise but this expectancy was not for the posts which would become contingently available on account of transfer or deputation and, therefore, any vacancy arising on account of transfer or deputation, through exigency of service, can never be anticipated at the time of advertising any number of posts. This is an unsettled exigency and, therefore, is incapable of being anticipated. 4. This is an unsettled exigency and, therefore, is incapable of being anticipated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to support his case, has relied upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court which are discussed hereinbelow :The first case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is State of T.N. v. S. Thangavel, (1997) 2 SCC 349 : AIR 1997 SC 2283 , wherein it has been held that as and when a list is prepared and after preparation of the list, if certain posts come into existence by bifurcation of the firkas and upgradation of sub-taluks, new posts were created and such new posts were required to be filled up. Such posts, instead of being filled in by temporary promotion, can be filled up by regular promotion from amongst the eligible candidates. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the promotion for existing cadre for the available vacancies which occurred due to upgradation. Since it was not a case of direct requirement wherein public at large is concerned, as looking to the number of vacancies people choose to apply, no prejudice can be seen to the existing cadre and, therefore, the ratio of this case has no application in the present controversy.Another case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is Bihar State Unemployed Civil Engineers Association v. State of Bihar, 1996 SCC (L&S) 1078 : AIR 1996 SC 2248 : 1996(3) SCT 517 (SC) . In this case, the Court did not feel that the stand taken by the respondent State was correct and, therefore, the direction was issued to identify whether there existed vacancies meant for general candidates or for reserved candidates and, if so, then the same was to be reported to the Court. In this case, no mandate as sought by the petitioner was issued.Yet another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that of Union of India v. Mohan Singh Rathore, (1996) 10 SCC 469 : AIR 1997 SC 2328 : 1996(4) SCT 598 (SC) . In this case, the respondent was an officer of the Rajasthan Police Service and he was desirous of being included in the IPS cadre for which the State authorities had not issued the "no deterioration certificate" in time and, therefore, in this background, after retirement, direction was issued to include the incumbent officer in select list. In this case, the respondent was an officer of the Rajasthan Police Service and he was desirous of being included in the IPS cadre for which the State authorities had not issued the "no deterioration certificate" in time and, therefore, in this background, after retirement, direction was issued to include the incumbent officer in select list. This too was a case of promotion and not a case of direct recruitment where concern of the public at large is under scrutiny and in promotion only the departmental candidates are to be taken into account.The petitioner has further relied upon the case decided by the Supreme Court in the matter of Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268 : AIR 1987 SC 169 , whereby action of the respondent State came into question which circled around fixing up of certain criteria that no appointment will be offered to a candidate who has secured less than 55% marks which resulted in not filling up of large number of vacancies and only few candidates were selected for appointment. Under these circumstances, it was said that selection cannot be arbitrarily restricted to few candidates notwithstanding a number of candidates being available and qualified for appointment. Further this has come in the findings of the Supreme Court that the Public Service Commission in that case only sent recommendation for 28 postings as only 28 names were asked for by the Government, which is not the case here. The petitioner took up the examination with the knowledge that 17 posts are advertised and may be that there is an increase of number of vacancies if any new post is created which could fall within the category of anticipated vacancy and, therefore, this case also has no application.Another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the matter of Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri, 1992 SCC (L&S) 999 . Therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Selection Board prepared the panels containing 1492 candidates as against the then available vacancies. In view of this contention, the selected candidates have got a right to be appointed. In the instant case, the panel was prepared for 62 candidates and it is not the case of the petitioner that there were 62 vacancies available. In view of this contention, the selected candidates have got a right to be appointed. In the instant case, the panel was prepared for 62 candidates and it is not the case of the petitioner that there were 62 vacancies available. Rather, he has based his claim on the vacancy being available on account of transfer or deputation which contingency is not covered by this case.The other case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is R.S. Mittal v. Union of India, 1995 Supp(2) SCC 230 : 1995 AIR SCW 2044 : 1995(3) SCT 284 (SC) , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is no doubt correct that a person on a select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he is selected. He has a right to be considered but, at the same time, the appointing authority cannot decline to make appointment on its whims. On the strength of the concluding line of this observation, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress and has said that the respondent appointing authority has not appointed the petitioner on the vacancy which has arisen by transfer/deputation and, therefore, has denied him appointment arbitrarily. Suffice it to say that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. In paragraph 5 of the same judgment, the case of a deputationist P.J. Menon was referred to and the vacancy lying vacant on account of deputation was not considered available and it was considered that he has a lien on the post and the finding was that apart from his lien on the post there were other clear vacancies and for those clear vacancies, the Court proceeded to examine the case. The vacancy available on account of deputation was, therefore, in the express knowledge of the Court and not included in the consideration while making any direction in favour of any candidate in the case. The vacancy available on account of deputation was, therefore, in the express knowledge of the Court and not included in the consideration while making any direction in favour of any candidate in the case. This case hits at the very bottom of the petitioner's case whereby deputation is not considered good enough to create a new vacancy available to be offered for posting.Another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the matter of S. Govinda Raju v. Karnataka SRTC, (1986) 3 SCC 273 : AIR 1986 SC 1680 , wherein it has been observed by the Court that once a candidate is selected, his name is included for consideration for appointment as and when the vacanicies arise. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to stake his claim on any vacancy which can be said to have arisen and which could be offered to anyone from the select list. 5. learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, JT 1997(7) SC 537 : (1997) AIR SCW 3961 : 1997(4) SCT 395 (P&H) , wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that from the law eneunciated from time to time, "It is in no uncertain words that this Court has held that it would be improper exercise of power to make appointments over and above those advertised. It is only in rare and exceptional circumstances and in emergent situation that this rule can be deviated from". This law was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the background of the observation that, "Before any advertisement is issued, it would, therefore, be incumbent upon the authorities to take into account the existing vacancies and anticipated vacancies. It is not as a matter of course that the authority can fill up more posts than advertised". learned counsel for the respondents has urged that keeping in view the law laid down in the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the portions quoted hereinabove, it is more than obvious that the respondent-employer has not exceeded his powers and has made appointments only against advertised posts which took into account the existing and anticipated vacancies. learned counsel for the respondents has urged that keeping in view the law laid down in the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the portions quoted hereinabove, it is more than obvious that the respondent-employer has not exceeded his powers and has made appointments only against advertised posts which took into account the existing and anticipated vacancies. At the time of issuance of the advertisement, neither the transfer nor deputation could be anticipated because to anticipate such a contingency is not within the domain of a mortal inasmuch as such exigences may occur at any point of time and are incapable of being prejudged.Another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is in the matter of Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, JT 1996(5) SC 219 : 1996(3) SCT 563 (SC) , wherein it has been held that, "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 and also for anticipated 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 posts advertised, even though it might have prepared a select list of more caniddates." The deviation can only be in the exceptional circumstances and the petitioner has not shown any exceptional circumstances in the instant case. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. From the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases noted hereinabove, it becomes more than obvious that as and when an advertisement is made for a fresh recruitment, then the appointments are to be made only on the advertised posts which should generally include the anticipated vacancies. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. From the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases noted hereinabove, it becomes more than obvious that as and when an advertisement is made for a fresh recruitment, then the appointments are to be made only on the advertised posts which should generally include the anticipated vacancies. It further emerges that the anticipated vacancies can be the vacancies which are capable of being reasonably anticipated such as the vacancies which may be identified with an element of certainty e.g., retirement of an incumbent, because according to service rules the retirement age is known from before but the transfer and deputation of an employee serving in the same discipline cannot be anticipated or foreseen as the same may arise on more than one contingency and, therefore, the transfer and deputation are such which cannot be foreseen at the time of issuance of the notification and as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.S. Mittal v. Union of India (supra) that a deputation vacancy cannot be considered as available vacancy for considering the case in hand. Therefore also, the vacancies occurring on account of transfer and deputation are not the future vacancies and on the day when the notification was issued, it was not an existing or anticipated vacancy. Under these circumstances, the post on which the petitioner is seeking appointment was neither a vacancy which could be anticipated nor could be said to be one which existed and, therefore, the petitioner could not stake any claim on any one of these vacancies. None of the petitioner's juniors in the list has been appointed. The panel has been operated upto the extent it could last and, if thereafter, the petitioner does not get appointed, then for that the respondents cannot be held liable. By virtue of his remaining in the select list only, the petitioner cannot be said to have acquired an indefeasible right in his favour and, therefore, is not entitled to get a mandate issued in his favour against the respondents. If the law is so held that transfer vacancy can be included in the anticipated or existing vacancy, then there is always the danger of the same being misused, abused and manipulated for accommodating some favoured ones in the list by getting some existing employees transferred and thus filling up of the posts. If the law is so held that transfer vacancy can be included in the anticipated or existing vacancy, then there is always the danger of the same being misused, abused and manipulated for accommodating some favoured ones in the list by getting some existing employees transferred and thus filling up of the posts. This cannot be permitted to happen and, therefore, the view canvassed by the petitioner is obviously misconceived. There is no force in the appeal. 7. The special appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******