Honble PATIL, C.J.–Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these special appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts are being taken from (Roop Kumari Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 184/99. (2). The writ petitioner-Roop Kumari Joshi in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2967/ 98 has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.1999 made by the learned Single Judge dismissing her writ petition alongwith similar other writ petitions. The few facts which are considered to be necessary and relevant for the disposal of these appeals are the following:- (3). The appellant was working on the post of Teacher Gr.II. She was promoted to the post of School Lecturer (Commerce) in the year 1989 and she has been working as such by the orders of the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, in accordance with the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (for short `the Rules). As per the said Rules, recruitment for the post of School Lecturer is to be done filing the posts 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. According to the appellant, she was eligible for being promoted to the post of School Lecturer (Commerce). However, she was promoted on ad hoc basis alongwith other persons. Later, the appellant and other persons similarly promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of School Lecturer (Commerce) were reverted to the post of School Teacher vide order dated 13.9.1991. (4). Against the said order of reversion dated 13.9.1991, some persons preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5658/91 and other batch of writ petitions at Jaipur Bench of this Court. The appellant and others filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4992/91 and other batch of writ petition against the same order before the principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur. (5). The learned Single Judge of Jaipur Bench disposed of (Anjani Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and another (1), and batch of writ petitions by his order dt.22.1.1992 allowing them. The operative portion of the said order reads: ``All the Writ Petitions are therefore allowed. The order of reversion of the petitioners issued on 13.9.91 is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to make yearwise determination of vacancies of Teacher Gr.I (School Lecturers) in Commerce for the years 1982-83 and onwards. They are also directed to issue seniority list of Teachers Gr.II (Commerce). The order of reversion of the petitioners issued on 13.9.91 is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to make yearwise determination of vacancies of Teacher Gr.I (School Lecturers) in Commerce for the years 1982-83 and onwards. They are also directed to issue seniority list of Teachers Gr.II (Commerce). After issue of seniority list and after yearwise determination of vacancies, the Respondents are directed to undertake exercise for making regular promotions keeping in view the overall quota meant for direct recruitment and for promotion. This exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of presentation of copy of this order. While making yearwise promotions, the Respondents must keep in mind the rules of promotions in particular years for which vacancies are required to be filled. Parties are left to bear their own costs. (6). Prahlad Das Sewak vs. State and Ors. (2) and batch of writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge at Principal Seat, Jodhpur by his order dated 2.7.1997 dismissing them with the following observations:- ``The grievance of the petitioner that no DPC had met after 1982 is no more available to them in view of the written statement filed by the State wherein it is specifically mentioned that the DPC had met in the year 1994 during the pendency of the writ petition. There is no merit in the writ petition in view of the pleadings, pleaded by the parties and therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs. However, because of the reason that during pendency of the writ petition, DPC had met and some selections had been made, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the same, if so advised by filing a fresh petition for the fresh cause of action arising after filing the present writ petition. (7). It is relevant to state here that the appellant was one of the writ petitioners in the Writ Petition No.4992/91 and batch of cases. (8). According to the appellant, as per the directions given by the Court in Anjani Kumars case (supra), the State Government was under an obligation to determine the year-wise vacancies, even after the year 1994, but without determining the vacancies after 1994, the reversion order dated 24.11.1997 was passed. (8). According to the appellant, as per the directions given by the Court in Anjani Kumars case (supra), the State Government was under an obligation to determine the year-wise vacancies, even after the year 1994, but without determining the vacancies after 1994, the reversion order dated 24.11.1997 was passed. In the said order dated 24.11.1997 passed by the Director, Primary and Secondary Edu- cation, Rajasthan, Bikaner, it was mentioned that since the various writ petitions filed against the order dated 13.9.1991 have been dismissed by the Honble High Court, the order dated 13.9.1991 came into force and the concerned officers were directed to comply with the said order and send compliance report to the Directorate. Aggrieved by the said order dated 24.11.1997, one Shyam Sunder filed a writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that he could avail the alternative remedy by way of filing appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant alongwith others filed appeals before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal), but the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, looking to the reply and stand of the respondents that due to less number of students in the subject of Commerce, there were excess School Lecturers and, therefore, the State Government could not hold DPC, nor the direction could be issued by the Tribunal to determine year wise vacancies and that the State Government had discretion to fill up the vacancies, as such, no direction could be issued by the Tribunal. (9). Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dismissing appeals, the appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2967/98. Similarly, other persons filed batch of writ petitions challenging the very order of the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge, with their consent and as requested by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them on all legal issues on the ground that substantial questions of law required authoritative decision. The learned Single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions by his order dated 12.1.1999. The learned Single Judge, with their consent and as requested by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them on all legal issues on the ground that substantial questions of law required authoritative decision. The learned Single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions by his order dated 12.1.1999. Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 184/99 and other writ-petitioners have filed appeals being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.99/1999 (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3369/98), D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.100/99 (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2962/98), D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 101/99 (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2884/98), D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 102/99 (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3011/98), D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 103/99 (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2885/98), D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 104/99 (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3356/98), D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 140/99 (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2967/98), D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 141/99 (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2945/98), D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 142/99 (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3690/98), D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.143/ 99 (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2944/98), D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 144/99, (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2946/98) and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 214/99 (arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3592/98). (10). The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge were not right in refusing to grant reliefs to the appellants, inasmuch as, the respondents were bound by the directions given by the Court in Anjani Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) disposed of on 22.1.1992, in which directions were given to make year-wise determination of vacancies of Teacher Gr.I (School Lecturers) in Commerce for the years 1982-83 and onwards and further direction was to issue seniority list of Teachers Gr.II (Commerce). After issue of seniority list and after year-wise determination of vacancies, the respondents were directed to undertake exercise for making regular promotions keeping in view the overall quota meant for direct recruitment and for promotion. After issue of seniority list and after year-wise determination of vacancies, the respondents were directed to undertake exercise for making regular promotions keeping in view the overall quota meant for direct recruitment and for promotion. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, there was no reason or justification not to determine year-wise vacancies after 1994 as well; the reversion order issued without compliance of the afore- mentioned directions given by the Court in Anjani Kumars case, was sufficient to grant reliefs to the appellants; failure to do so has resulted in a great hardship and serious prejudice to the rights and interest of the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that Rule 9 of the Rules was mandatory to determine the year-wise vacancies. (11). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued in support and in justification of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and reiterated in his arguments before us the same submissions made before the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions. (12). We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned cou- nsel for the parties. (13). Although in Anjani Kumars case (supra), directions were given to determine vacancies year-wise for the years 1982-83 and onwards and, thereafter, exercise to be made with regard to direct recruitment and for promotion, in Prahlad Das Sewak vs. State & ors. (supra). and batch of cases, the learned Single Judge, taking note of the subsequent events and looking to the stand taken by the respondents, dismissed the writ petitions. However, because of the reason that during the pendency of the said writ petitions, DPC had met and some selections had been made, the petitioners were given liberty to challenge the same, if so advised, by filing a fresh writ petition on the fresh cause of action. The appellant was one such writ petitioner as in the case of Prahlad Das Sewak. In other words, the appellant has also suffered the order dated 2.7.1997 made by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4992/91 and batch of cases. It appears that the said order became final, inasmuch as, it was not challenged further. The appellant was one such writ petitioner as in the case of Prahlad Das Sewak. In other words, the appellant has also suffered the order dated 2.7.1997 made by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4992/91 and batch of cases. It appears that the said order became final, inasmuch as, it was not challenged further. The learned Single Judge in the order under appeal has noticed that in the order dated 2.7.1997 made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4992/91, it was made clear that after the change of factual matrix in 1994 when the process of promotion had been undertaken by the respondents, the situation stood changed ad, as such, the judgment in Anjani Kumars case dated 22.1.1992 was no more attracted and the petitioners were given liberty to challenge, if there had been any irregularity or illegality in the selection process held in 1994. As already stated above by us, the order dated 2.7.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4992/91 (Prahlad Das Sewaks case) became final. Hence, it was not open to the appellants to rely on Anjani Kumars case (supra) again to seek directions. (14). There was some controversy between the parties as to the interpretation and application of Rule 9 of the Rules. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is appropriate to extract the relevant portion of Rule 4, 9 and 22 of the Rules: ``Rule-4 Composition and strength of the Service- (1)....... (2)....... (3)....... (4) There shall be separate cadres in each Group of service specified in Schedules I to VI such as........ Provided that Government may, from time to time:- (a) create any post, permanent or temporary, as may be found necessary; and (b) leave unfilled or held in abeyance or abolish or allow to lapse any post, permanent or temporary, without thereby entitling any person to any claim or compensation. ``Rule-9. Determination of vacancies- 1(a)- Subject to the provisions of these Rules, the Appointing Authority shall determine on Ist April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. .................. ``Rule-22. ``Rule-9. Determination of vacancies- 1(a)- Subject to the provisions of these Rules, the Appointing Authority shall determine on Ist April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. .................. ``Rule-22. Selection by the appointing authority:- Subject to the provision of rule 7, the appointing authority shall select candidates, who stand highest in order of merit in the list prepared by the Commission under rule 20; Provided that the inclusion of a candidates name in the list confers no right to appointment............. (15). Referring to the aforesaid Rules, the learned Single Judge has concluded that a person whose name appears in the select list does not have any legal right to appointment, taking support from the decisions of the Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India (3), Asha Kaul vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (4), Union of India vs. S.S. Uppal (5) and Syndicate Bank and others vs. Shankar Paul & Ors. (6). The learned Single Judge has relied on some more decisions in this regard. It will not be necessary to refer them again. Added to this, proviso to Rule 22 of the Rules, extracted above, expressly states that inclusion of a candidates name in the list confers no right to appointment. Hence, we endorse the view of the learned Single Judge. (16). Rule 4 of the Rules, extracted above, has given right to Govt. not to fill up a vacancy or to keep it in abeyance or abolish it without any compensation to any person. Relying on the said Rule, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that making appointment or filling up the posts is a policy matter to be decided by the competent authority; the court cannot issue direction or compel the authority to change its policy, which involves financial burden on it, unless it is a clear cut case of malafides or arbitrariness. The decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Tej Ram Paras Ramji Bombhate (7), supports this view. Further, the Honble Supreme Court in Government of Orissa vs. Har Prasad Das (8) has held thus:- ``Whether to fill up a post or not is a policy decision and unless it is shown to be arbitrary, it is not open to the Tribunal to interfere with such decision of the Government and direct it to make further appointments. Further, the Honble Supreme Court in Government of Orissa vs. Har Prasad Das (8) has held thus:- ``Whether to fill up a post or not is a policy decision and unless it is shown to be arbitrary, it is not open to the Tribunal to interfere with such decision of the Government and direct it to make further appointments. The Tribunal in directing the Government to make further appointments on the efficiency ground of public administration went beyond its jurisdiction. (17). Similarly, the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (9) has taken the view that creation and abolition of post and filling up the same is the prerogative of the Executive. The learned Single Judge has referred to few more decisions in support of this view. Moreover, Rule 9 is subject to the provisions of the Rules including Rule 4. (18). The learned Single Judge has held that Rule 9 of the Rules is mandatory in regard to determination of year-wise vacancies, placing reliance on the decision in Union of India vs. N.R. Banerjee and others (10). The learned Single Judge, having held that Rule 9 of the Rules was mandatory, has read Rule 9 and Rule 4 harmoniously. He was of the view that interpretation of Rule 9 of the Rules that the vacancies should be determined every year and such vacancies must be filled up immediately or at all, would render the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules nugatory. Relying on the various decisions of the Apex Court including the decision in Sultana Begum vs. Prem Chand Jain (11), in which it was observed that ``the courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of the provisions as a `dead letter or `useless lumber is not harmonious construction, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the provisions of Rules 4 and 9 are to be read harmoniously and rightly so in our view. In the cases on hand, it was not shown that the act of the respondents in not filling up the posts was either arbitrary or malafide. As already stated above, the State Government under Rule 4 of the Rules has got power to create any post or leave a post unfilled or abolish a post or allow to lapse any post, permanent or temporary. As already stated above, the State Government under Rule 4 of the Rules has got power to create any post or leave a post unfilled or abolish a post or allow to lapse any post, permanent or temporary. In the order dated 2.7.1997 made by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4992/91 - Prahlad Das Sewaks case (supra), subsequent events were taken note of and the writ petitions were disposed of reserving liberty to challenge the process of selection or other irregu- larity, if any. Hence, it was not open to the appellants to rely again on Anjani Kumars case (supra), which case was held not applicable to the appellants and others in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4992/91 - Prahlad Das Sewaks case (supra) for the reasons stated in the order dated 2.7.1997. In that, it was specifically noted that the respondents were already facing the problem of excess Commerce Teachers and the vacancies were not available. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge declined to issue any direction to the respondents as sought for by the writ petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions by the order under appeal. We do not find any good or valid reason or ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (19). In the result, for the reasons stated, we find no merit in these appeals. Hence, they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed, but with no order as to costs.