JUDGMENT 1. - Since identical questions of fact and law are involved in the instant writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. All the petitioners approached this court seeking direction in the name of the respondent No. 2 to appoint them on the posts of Physical Education Teachers with effect from the date on which the appointment orders of SC, ST and OBC candidates were issued. 3. Admittedly all the petitioners were processed through selection procedure and they were respectively placed at No. 8, 9, 6 and 4 in the select list. The grievance of the petitioners is that the candidates belonging to the SC, ST and OBC categories, who were also selected along with the petitioners, were given appointments, but the petitioners were deprived of the appointments arbitrarily and the act of the respondents is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petitions justifying their action and averred that the appointments to OBC, SC and ST candidates were given in view of filling up the backlog relating to roster point which remained unfilled. In order to fill up the backlog relating to such roster point five appointments were given to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. It was further averred that the respondents were required to follow the Circulars issued by the Department of Personnel so as to fill up the backlog existing since 1994-95 for the candidates belonging to SC and ST categories. The petitioners have no right to be given appointments in view of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar and others v. Mohd. Kalimuddin 1996 JT (1) Supreme Court 271 and Union of India v. S.S. Uppal JT 1996 Vol. 1 Supreme Court 258 . 5. Rejoinder to the reply was also placed on record. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3148/1996 Devi Shanker Gautam v. State of Rajasthan and another , an application under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was moved by one Sayed Fazale Mohammed. This court vide order dated April 25, 1997 allowed the application and Sayed Fazale Mohammed was permitted to file reply to the writ petition. In the application Syed Fazale Mohammed averred that the petitioner Devi Shanker Gautam submitted false bonafide resident certificate and he is not entitled to be appointed. This court vide order dated April 25, 1997 allowed the application and Sayed Fazale Mohammed was permitted to file reply to the writ petition. In the application Syed Fazale Mohammed averred that the petitioner Devi Shanker Gautam submitted false bonafide resident certificate and he is not entitled to be appointed. Certain documents have been placed on record. The petitioner Devi Shanker Gautam countered the allegations levelled against him by filing reply to the application and averred that bonafide resident certificate appended with the writ petition as Annexure-5 was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sawai Madhopur on April 7, 1995 and the said certificate cannot be challenged in the writ petition. It appears that the Civil Suit for permanent injunction is already pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karauli in which the petitioner Devi Shanker Gautam is a party. 6. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 7. In State of Bihar and other v. Mohd. Kalimuddin (supra) it was held that successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed unless the relevant role indicate to the contrary. In union of India v. S.S. Uppal (supra), it was indicated that inclusion of the names of the candidates in the select list does not confer any right of appointment and the existence of vacancies do not give any legal right to the selected candidates. 8. In Government of Orissa through Secretary, Commerce and Transport Department Bhubaneshwar v. Haraprasad Das and others 1998 (1) SLR 47 their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that merely because the name of the candidate is empanelled the Government cannot be compelled to make appointment. If the Government decides not to make further appointments for valid reasons the mere empanelement or inclusion of one's name in the selection list does not give a right to be appointed. So also if the Government decides not to make further appointment for a valid reason, it cannot be said that it has acted arbitrarily by not appointing those whose names are included in the selection list. Whether to fill up a post or not is a policy decision and unless it is shown to be arbitrary it is not open for the courts to interfere with such decisions of the Government and direct it to make further appointments. 9. Whether to fill up a post or not is a policy decision and unless it is shown to be arbitrary it is not open for the courts to interfere with such decisions of the Government and direct it to make further appointments. 9. In the instant case, it appears that there was no policy decision of the Government. The names of the petitioners Devi Shankar Gautam, Rohit Kumar Gupta, and Ashok Kumar Sharma were included in the merit list whereas the name of the petitioner Furkan Ahmed was placed in the reserve list at No. 9. This court vide order dated May 7, 1997 while disposing the interim application directed that all appointments to be made on the posts of Physical Education Teachers shall be subject to the final decision of the writ petition. 10. A look at letter dated June 21, 1996 appended with the Writ Petition No. 3148/1996 as Annexure-9 goes to show that as many as 12 posts were lying vacant with the respondent No. 2. The respondents though referred the Circular issued by the Department of Personnel in their reply, but said Circular has not been placed on record. After scanning the material on record, I am of the view that the' decision of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners is not based on valid reasons. The respondents also could not establish the fact that 12 posts were not lying vacant with the respondent No. 2. I have no reason to disbelieve the letter dated June 21, 1996 issued by the District Education Officer (Primary Education) Sawai Madhopur to District Education Officer (Boys Schools) Karauli which shows that 12 posts of Physical Education Teachers were lying vacant. The petitioners are eligible for appointment on the posts of Physical Education Teachers as per their merit and they cannot be discriminated in the garb of Circular issued in favour of the other candidates in respect of roster point inasmuch as when the posts of Physical Education Teachers are lying vacant. The ratio of State of Bihar and others v. Mohd. Kalimuddin (supra) and Union of India v. S.S. Uppal (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The respondents no doubt were duty bound to follow circulars in respect of the roster point but not at the cost of the life and liberty of the petitioners. 11. Kalimuddin (supra) and Union of India v. S.S. Uppal (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The respondents no doubt were duty bound to follow circulars in respect of the roster point but not at the cost of the life and liberty of the petitioners. 11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I hold that the petitioners were denied appointments on invalid grounds, in an arbitrary manner and the act of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. In so far as the allegation against the petitioner Devi Shanker Gautam in concerned, I cannot disbelieve at this stage the document Annexure-5 appended with the writ petition issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sawai Madhopur. However, I may observe that if it is found by the competent civil court that document Annexure-5 was issued illegally, the intervenor Sayed Fazale Mohammed may approach the concerned authority in this regard after the decision of the civil court. 13. Resultantly, the writ petitions stand allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners on the posts of Physical Education Teachers within two months from the date of receipt of this order against the vacant posts of Physical Education Teachers lying with the respondent No. 2 in accordance with their respective merit with effect from June 10, 1996 with all consequential benefits. Costs easy. *******