Judgment B. M. Lal. , Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th July, 1993 passed in CWJC No.1109 of 1990 which was heard with cwjc No.5482 of 1991, whereby the learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the said writ petitions. 2. In the said writ petitions, the prayer was to direct the concerned authorities to appoint the writ petitioners-appellants as Sanskrit teachers in Secondary Schools on the basis of a panel prepared on 6-10-1987, besides the ancilliary relief prayed for quashing the advertisement published on 30-1-1991 inviting applications for preparation of a fresh panel for appointment to the post of Sanskrit teachers in Secondary Schools. 3. In short, the relevant facts are that on 14-8-1984 an advertisement was published by Vidyalaya Seva Board inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in different subjects, including Sanskrit, in government High Schools. In response to the said advertisement the petitioners-appellants submitted their applications alongwith others. A selection was made and finally a panel of 633 candidates was prepared on 6-10-1987. The case of the petitioners-appellants is that at the first stage 174 candidates from the panel were appointed on 15-4-1988 and a second batch of 201 candidates were again appointed on 4/7-10-1988. The life of the panel, admittedly, was for one year which was, however, extended by another one year, i. e. , till 5-10-1989. 4. It appears that the case of the state in the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition was that 125 vacancies were existing, 50% of which were kept reserved for Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes candidates and the rest were filled up from the panel. Since the petitioners-appellants were below in the panel and could not reach to fill up the said vacancies, they could not be appointed. According to the petitioners-appellants, however, the number of vacancies then in existence were 198, half of which, i. e. , 99 were filled up from the panel on 20-2-90, whereafter no further appointments were made from the panel as, according to the case of the state, its extended life came to an end on 5-10-1989 and it was decided that no further vacancies were to be filled up from the said panel. The State authorities came out with a fresh advertisement on 30-1-1991. 5. The State authorities came out with a fresh advertisement on 30-1-1991. 5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants that even after the expiry of the aforesaid extended period few appointments were made but many vacancies remained unfilled, yet the petitioners-appellants and others were left out for arbitrary reasons inasmuch as, according to the State, the left over vacancies were to be filled up by the reserved candidates who were still to be appointed pursuant to the earlier panels by applying the reservation policy which was not correct. Further, according to him, there was no backlog in the reserved category, against which the persons belonging to the reserved category could have been appointed ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioners-appellants. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, we do not find any error in the same. The learned Single judge has rightly held that the panel being of the year 1987, the petitioners cannot be entitled for any relief in the year 1993 when the panel is almost six years old. The learned Single Judge has also held that there was no material for him to hold that the objection raised by the department regarding reservation in favour of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes was not bona fide and was solely calculated to make delay in appointments from the panel. As regards appointments made after the expiry of the panel, the learned Single judge has held that in the facts and circumstances, their cases can be said to be under consideration before the panel had expired and since in their cases, the matter was delayed on account of the controversy relating to reservation, the life of the panel was relaxed for a few months, but the petitioners in that score cannot make any grievance as they were so low in the panel that the question of their appointment from the panel was never under consideration. 7. However, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners-appellants as the validity of the appointments made after the expiry of the panel was not assailed in the writ petition nor the said appointees were parties in the writ petition. 7. However, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners-appellants as the validity of the appointments made after the expiry of the panel was not assailed in the writ petition nor the said appointees were parties in the writ petition. As such, we do not feel persuaded to go into the said question as to whether the appointments made after expiry of the panel can be held to be valid or not. Be that as it may, the settled principle is that the mere fact that the candidates name appears in the selection list does not entitle him to be appointed. The only restraint put on the power of the government to make appointments is that they do not travel outside the list and shall not depart from the ranking given in the list. It is always open to the government to decide how many appointments are to be made [see State of haryana V/s. Subhas Chander, AIR 1973 sc 2216 . ] 8. In view of the said principle, the relief prayed for in the writ petition has rightly been refused by the learned single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.