ORDER. 1. The order in this petition shall also decide the connected petition W.P. No.1986/97 (Sharad Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others) in which the subject matter is identical. 2. The petitioner Santosh Kumar Dubey claims appointment on the basis of his selection by a regular procedure for the post of Lower Division Clerk in Janpad Panchayat, Vijay Raghavgarh. 3. The petitioner Sharad Kumar Shrivastava in the connected petitioner has already served the Janpad Panchayat as Lower Division Clerk under temporary appointments for fixed durations. He also claims appointment to the post of L.D.C. on the basis of his regular selection for the post with the other petitioner Santosh Kumar Dubey. 4. The recruitment to Panchayat services is regulated by service rules named M.P. Janpad Panchayat (Employees, Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules') framed under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam made under M.P. Panchayat Act, 1962 repealed by the new Act- of 1981. The rules framed under the repealed Act survive in the absence of new Rules framed under the new Act. The procedure for direct recruitment is regulated by Rules 5 (3). The detailed procedure laid down for regular appointment to the post requires constitution of a selection committee consisting of Members specified and preparation of a selection panel on the basis of which appointments are to be made to the vacant posts in the order of merit assigned to the candidates in the select list. The relevant part of the Rule 5 (3) to 8 is as under :- 5 (3) – "For direct recruitment to the Janpad Panchayat Service there shall be constituted a Selection Committee consisting of the following :-- (i) Chairman of the Janpad Panchayat concerned -- Chairman. (ii) Chairman of General Committee of the Janpad Panchayat -- Member (iii)District Panchayat and Welfare Officer of the District -- Member (iv)Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat - Secretary. (4) Candidates will be selected by giving marks on the basis of norms prescribed by the Selection Committee. (5) For selection to the Technical Services under the Janpad Panchayat the District Head of the Technical Department concerned shall be included in the Selection Committee. (6) The selection to the direct service under the Janpad Panchayat shall be 'made out of the list of candidates supplied by the District Employment Exchange. (5) For selection to the Technical Services under the Janpad Panchayat the District Head of the Technical Department concerned shall be included in the Selection Committee. (6) The selection to the direct service under the Janpad Panchayat shall be 'made out of the list of candidates supplied by the District Employment Exchange. (7) Where the Employment Exchange fails to supply the list of the candidates possessing the prescribed qualification the Chief Executive Officer shall take steps to advertise the posts in the important News Paper approved by the Janpad Panchayat by special or general order inviting applications within such time as may be specified in the advertisement in the prescribed form by the Janpad Panchayat. It is essential that the candidates must be registered with any Employment Exchange. (8) After the scrutiny of the applications the Selection Board shall interview the eligible candidates who are more suitable for appointment in order of merit. The orders of appointment shall be signed by the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Janpad Panchayat." 5. It is not disputed that in accordance with the procedure indicated in the above Rules intimation to the Employment Exchange was sent for recruitment to available vacancies of L.D.Cs. Pursuant thereto two petitioners were sponsored by the Exchange along-with other suitable candidates. The Panchayat then called some more names and it is only thereafter that name of one Munnalal was also sponsored by the Exchange. 6. It is also not disputed that the two petitioners faced the selection and were placed in the selection panel assigning them higher positions in the merit list. 7. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the recommendations in favour of the two petitioners for appointment against the available vacant posts of L.D.Cs the Janpad Panchayat did not issue orders of appointment in their favour because they were interested in getting Munnalal appointed against one of the available vacancies. It is stated that Munnalal is related to Vice Chairman of the Janpad Panchayat who has also been arrayed as one of the respondents. 8. On behalf of the Panchayat, learned counsel appearing for it first raised a preliminary objection that the resolution of the Janpad Panchayat not to make appointments on the basis of select list can be questioned in proceedings under section 85 or by way of an appeal under section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993. 9. 8. On behalf of the Panchayat, learned counsel appearing for it first raised a preliminary objection that the resolution of the Janpad Panchayat not to make appointments on the basis of select list can be questioned in proceedings under section 85 or by way of an appeal under section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993. 9. The petitioners are questioning the action of the Janpad Panchayat in not making appointments on the basis of the selections already made. The remedy of invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the State and the remedy of appeal cannot be said to be such alternative remedies as to deny them relief in these proceedings particularly when on the basis of a show cause notice issued by this Court complete returns have been filed by the Janpad Panchayat and attempts have been made to justify the action on facts. The preliminary objection therefore, based on alternative remedy is rejected. 10. On merits on behalf of the Janpad Panchayat Vice Chairman has filed a return on affidavit denying any relationship with candidate Munnalal and Panchayat has also denied the allegation of malafides. It is submitted that the resolution did not make appointments on the basis of select list was made due to the economic stringency. On behalf of the panchayat learned counsel contended that inclusion of the name in selection panel confers no right on the petitioner of seeking appointment. Reliance is placed on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991)3SCC47]. 11. I have perused the return submitted by the Panchayat and also considered the submissions made on its behalf to show justification for refusal to make appointments on the basis of the select list. There can be no quarrel with the legal proposition that mere inclusion of the name of the candidate in the select list confers no right of appointment on him, but it is equally well settled that in the matter of public appointments the AutJ1brity Competent to appoint can refuse to make appointment to the post already advertised only for bona fide reasons. The Public Authority in the matter of recruitment to public services cannot act in arbitrary manner. The decision of Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash (supra) on which reliance has been placed also recognises the above legal position. The Public Authority in the matter of recruitment to public services cannot act in arbitrary manner. The decision of Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash (supra) on which reliance has been placed also recognises the above legal position. See the underlined portion of the judgment in Shankarsan Dash's case: "Even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. UN less the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all on any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, 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 decision in Shankarsan Dash's case is also distinguishable as in that case relevant papers and material were produced before the Court to satisfy it that the decision not to operate select list was taken for a bona fide reason. See the distinguishable part of the judgment contained in the following portion: "From the materials produced before the Court it was fully established that there has not been any arbitrariness whatsoever on the part of the respondent in filling up the vacancies in question or the other vacancies. The process of final selection had to be closed at some stage as was actually done. A decision in this regard was accordingly taken and the process for further allotment to any vacancy arising later was closed. It is not material if in pursuance of a decision already taken before closing the process of final selection, the formal appointments were concluded later. What is relevant is to see as to when the process of final selection was closed. Mere completing the formalities cannot be of any help to the appellant. It is not material if in pursuance of a decision already taken before closing the process of final selection, the formal appointments were concluded later. What is relevant is to see as to when the process of final selection was closed. Mere completing the formalities cannot be of any help to the appellant. So far the decision to adopt a different policy with respect to filling up of the reserved vacancies is concerned the same is justified on account of the special circumstances mentioned in the respondent's affidavits. The decision to depart from the confirmed policy was taken after a consideration by the authorities of the position in regard to unavailability to qualified candidates from year to year adversely affecting the desired strength of the reserved candidates in the services and cannot be condemned on the grounds of arbitrariness and illegal discrimination. 12. From the aforesaid portion quoted from the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash's case (supra) it is clear that it is for the Panchayat to justify on the basis of documents and materials that there existed a bona fide reason in refusing to make the appointment on the basis of selections already made. 13. In the instant case keeping aside the allegations of mala fides, it could not be disputed by the Panchayat that one of the petitioner's was working for a long period on fixed term appointment on the post. A decision was taken formally by the Panchayat to advertise the existing sanctioned posts to fill the vacancies against them. The procedure in the recruitment rules was duly followed. The Employment Exchange was intimated which sponsored the candidates. A Selection Committee was constituted which interviewed the candidates and prepared a selection panel. Thereafter the Panchayat cannot be allowed to resolve that because of economic stringency the post would not be filled. In that respect it is relevant to mention that on 24.12.96 (Annex. P. 19 in W.P. 1986/97) the Joint Director of Panchayat and Samaj Sewa, Jabalpur called an explanation of the Chief Executive Officer as to why on completion of selection procedure regular appointments were not made and adhoc appointments for 30 days were made of certain candidates for fixed duration. After serving of this letter calling explanation, the Panchayat on 31.12.96 (Annex. P. 20) set aside the adhoc appointments including that of petitioner Sharad Kumar Shrivastava. After serving of this letter calling explanation, the Panchayat on 31.12.96 (Annex. P. 20) set aside the adhoc appointments including that of petitioner Sharad Kumar Shrivastava. It is also relevant to notice the contents of the reply dated 10.1.97 (Annex. P. 2) sent by the C.E.O. of Janpad Panchayat to the Dy. Director in respect to his letter calling, explanation. In that letter it has been stated by the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Panchayat that the select list prepared after regular selection had not by that time been received by the Panchayat, and therefore, adhoc 30 days' appointments were made which were subsequently cancelled. It is also stated in that reply that soon after the copy of the select list is received the appointments would be made. It is after this reply was sent on 10.1.97 that the Panchayat took a resolution not to make appointments against the available sanctioned posts. It is thus very clear from their correspondence and the manner in which the Panchayat proceeded in the matter that economic stringency is a bogus and lame excuse to deny opportunity of appointments to the petitioners. Even if the action of the Panchayat cannot be castigated as mala fide, it cannot be described as bona fide. The recruitment was to be made against a sanctioned post for which there was budget approval. The posts were duly advertised and the officer of the State was duly informed that necessary appointments could be made. There is, therefore, great force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that for some extraneous reasons and on false excuse of economic stringency the petitioners were denied opportunity of appointment. 14. The Chief Executive Officer being ex-officio Member of the Selection Committee was duty bound to place the selection panel before the Panchayat for its implement-ion. The contention advanced on behalf of the Panchayat that the selection list has now lost its validity after expiry of one year's period cannot also be accepted in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances in which the select list was not operated deliberately by the Pane hay at for reasons which are not bona fide. . 15. Consequently, the petitions are allowed. . 15. Consequently, the petitions are allowed. The respondent No.2 through its Chief Executive Officer is directed to issue orders of appointments in favour of the petitioners on the basis of their position in the select list prepared pursuant to the proceedings started with the intimation of availability of vacancies to employment exchange vide intimation (Annex. P. 5 in W.P. 120/97). Let the necessary compliance of the directions of the Court be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.