The issue involved in this writ petition relates to the process of recruitment/employment of teachers under the Sate Govt that has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. The Department of Information and Public Relation (Jana Sanjog) of the Govt of Assam by notification dated 13.9.91 invited applications for filling up various vacancies under the Elementary Education including the vacancies of Assistant Teacher in Middle Schools of Assam. The notification indicated about the vacancies meant for 5474 schools of Assam. The petitioner responded to the notification and submitted his application along with the testimonials before the last date. In due time the State Govt constituted a Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education for selection of candidates for appointment of teachers in Primary Schools and Middle Schools in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Govt from time to time. Petitioner was called upon to appear for interview before the Sub Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education of Kaliabor Sub Division on 17.11.91 and petitioner appeared before the Selection Board. According to the petitioner a Select List was published on 25.4.93 for the Kaliabor Sub Division selecting 61 (sixty one) candidates for appointment in Middle Schools of Kaliabor Constituency. The Selection Board also selected the petitioner and his name figured at SI No. 41 of the select list. It was further asserted that out of the 61 candidates selected by the aforesaid select list the first 10 (ten) candidates from SI No 1 to 10 were appointed as per rules without any deviation from the merit list. The Selection Board thereafter approved another 12 (twelve) names from the aforesaid select list on 4.10.93 in which the name of Mrs Amiya Bhagawati whose name appeared at SI No. 42 of the list dated 25.4.93 was brought in SI No. 20 superseding the claim of the petitioner. The said Board also brought another person, namely Sri Pranoy Kumar Barua against SI. No. 22 though his name did not figure in the select list of 25.4.93. The aforesaid two persons were thereafter appointed in August and September, 1994. One Smti Uparani Bhagawati whose name figured at SI. No. 21 of the list dated 25.4.93 questioned the appointment of the aforesaid two persons in Civil Rule No. 4307 of 1995. No. 22 though his name did not figure in the select list of 25.4.93. The aforesaid two persons were thereafter appointed in August and September, 1994. One Smti Uparani Bhagawati whose name figured at SI. No. 21 of the list dated 25.4.93 questioned the appointment of the aforesaid two persons in Civil Rule No. 4307 of 1995. The High Court entertained her petition and by an order dated 17.10.95 the Court ordered in the interim that any appointment that may be made would be subject to the result of the civil rule. During the pendency of the said civil rule the aforesaid Uparani Bhagawati was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Dewri Silabandha ME School under Kaliabor Sub Division against a vacancy caused on retirement of Smti Phuleswari Devi. The petitioner also cited the instance of appointment of Sri Nilambani Dev Nath (the respondent No. 4) and Sri Mukul Saikia in the year 1996 as Assistant Teachers in Kuthari ME School and Solong ME School respectively. Out of the said two persons Sri Mukul Saikia was a selected candidate where Sri Nilambani Dev Nath was not so. Petitioner further asserted that he was accommodated against a deputation vacancy which came to an end on 7.9.93. Thereafter he was appointed on 20.10.93 as an Assistant Teacher against a deputation vacancy in Chekoni Borhola ME School under Kaliabor Sub Division against the vacancy caused due to deputation of a teacher for normal training in 1994. Accordingly petitioner joined his service on 20.10.93 and rendered satisfactory service as Assistant Teacher upto 31.8.94 and had to leave the said post on resumption of duty by the deputed teacher. The service rendered by the petitioner was acclaimed by the Headmaster and Secretary of the school and issued certificate to that effect. Petitioner moved the authority seeking remedial measure. The Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Assam apprised the petitioner of the ban on appointment put by the Govt and addressed a letter to the District Elementary Education Officer, Nagaon forwarding the documents and requesting him to take necessary action as per Govt rules and procedure after lifting the ban on appointment, vide letter dated 6th April, 1995. The said letter also included the name of the petitioner along with one Sri Promoth Nath Dev of Cachar. The said letter also included the name of the petitioner along with one Sri Promoth Nath Dev of Cachar. Petitioner thereafter also persuaded the matter with the authority and failing to obtain any positive response from the authority moved this Court by way of this application seeking a Mandamus commanding on the respondents to appointing him in any vacant post on the basis of the said select list. 3. The matter is pending before this Court since 1996 and. despite granting time the respondents did not file any affidavit. 4. Mr. BP Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the Govt action of not appointing the petitioner as arbitrary and violative of the equality d clause. Mr. Borah, learned counsel submitted that State owes a duty to provide adequate means of livelihood to a person in conformity with the policy laid down under Article 39A of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further submitted that all State actions must be above board free from arbitrariness. Mr. Borah submitted that in the instant case State did not come to contest the case of the petitioner by filing affidavit and in the absence of any rebuttal by the State the Court should accept the petition of the petitioner and provide him the necessary benefits under the law. The learned counsel in support of his contention referred the decision of the Supreme Court in Naseem Bano vs. State of UP .reported in AIR 1993 SC 2592 . Mr. Borah referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarasan Das vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 submitted that though there is no indefeasible right in any selected candidate to be appointed in a post to which he was selected and such selection process can be stymied at any stage without appointing the selected candidate, but at the same time the State action can be questioned on the grounds of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. In support of his contention, besides Shankarasan's case (supra) the learned counsel also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Parshu Ram College & another vs. State of Haryana & others, (1999) 6 SCC 46 . 5. Mr. In support of his contention, besides Shankarasan's case (supra) the learned counsel also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Parshu Ram College & another vs. State of Haryana & others, (1999) 6 SCC 46 . 5. Mr. B J Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in support of his perseverance could not convince the Court as to the reasons for not filing affidavit nor any reasons supporting the State action by producing any record.' The order sheet reflects the number of adjournments granted to the respondents for filing affidavit. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel however referred to clause (vi) of Rule 3 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 and submitted that recruitment procedures are regulated by the rules mentioned above. The select list prepared by the Board is to be approved and the validity of the select list is for one year unless its validity is extended by the Govt. Since the list expired, submitted the learned counsel, question of giving a direction for appointing the petitioner from a list which has since expired in 1994 itself does not arise. Mr. Borah in answering the above contention of Mr. Talukdar referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smti Sumila Boro & others vs. State of Assam & others, (1989) 1 GLR 471 (1988 (1) NOC 20). Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel pointed out to the appointment of Smti Amiya Bhagawati and Sri Pranoy Kumar Barua on the strength of a select list dated 4.10.93. The learned counsel submitted that the list dated 4.10.93 is the list which was finally approved and, therefore, the name of Smti Amiya Bhagawati whose name appeared at SI. No.42 of the list dated 25.4.93 came at SI. No. 20. The approving authority might have considering the entire materials on record placed Smti Amiya Bhagawati at SI. No. 20 and Sri Pranoy Kumar. Barua at SI. No. 22 in the list dated 4.10.93. The case of Sri Pranoy a Kumar Barua might be a case whose name was wrongfully dropped and subsequently restored on approval. At any rate those appointments were made in 1994 and since the petitioner did not question the same in right time this Court should not go into those issues at this belated stage in the absence of proper explanation from the petitioner. As regards the appointment of Sri Mukul Saikia Mr. At any rate those appointments were made in 1994 and since the petitioner did not question the same in right time this Court should not go into those issues at this belated stage in the absence of proper explanation from the petitioner. As regards the appointment of Sri Mukul Saikia Mr. Talukdar pointed out that name of Mukul Saiki| was at SI. No. 27 in the select list dated 25.4.93 and petitioner's name was finaly at SI. No. 41 and, therefore, there was no arbitrariness in appointing said Mukul Saikia by the respondents. Mr. Talukdar referring to the appointment of the respondent No.4 Sri Nilambani Dev Nath stated that the respondent No. 4, on the own showing of the petitioner, was appointed on ad hoc basis for three months to tide over the situation on the transfer of a person. Ad hoc appointments are made for exigencies of service and, therefore, such appointment per se cannot be held to be arbitrary, submitted the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. From the facts narrated above it appears that the Sub Divisional Level Selection Board prepared a select list consisting of 61 persons for appointment as ME/MV School teacher in Kaliabor Constituency against retired vacancies. The list dated 4.10.93 referred by the petitioner is seemingly a list of selected candidates approved by the Board. The select list annexed with this petition is not the complete list. It only contains the name of 12 persons from SI No. 11 to 22. The said list was signed on 4.10.93 wherein the name of Amiya Bhagawati, Umarani Bhagawati and Pranoy Kumar Barua were shown at SI. Nos. 20, 21 and 22. Smti Amiya Bhagawati and Sri Pranoy Kumar Barua whose name appeared at SI. No. 20 and 22 were appointed in August and September, 94, Smti Umarani Bhagawati was appointed on 30.1.96 on the strength of an order of the High Court dated 17.10.95. The District Elementary Education Officer also appointed the respondent No.4 and Sri Mukul Saikia by order dated 30.1.96 on ad hoc basis for three months. The respondent No.4 was appointed against a vacancy caused by transfer of a teacher and Sri Mukul Saikia was also appointed for three months against the post which was held by one Seturam Sarma, Assistant Teacher, who was allowed to officiate as Headmaster on retirement of the incumbent Dharmananda Sharma. The respondent No.4 was appointed against a vacancy caused by transfer of a teacher and Sri Mukul Saikia was also appointed for three months against the post which was held by one Seturam Sarma, Assistant Teacher, who was allowed to officiate as Headmaster on retirement of the incumbent Dharmananda Sharma. On the own showing of the petitioner ten persons were appointed as per merit from the select list. The list dated 4.10.93 referred by the petitioner is not a new list. The aforesaid list contained the names at SI. No. 11 to 19 who are the same that with the list dated 25.4.93. Smti Mayuri Barua who appeared at SI. No. 20 of the list 25.4.93 did not figure in the list dated 4.10.93 and in her place the name of Smti Amiya Bhagawati was shown at SI. No. 20. Smti Umarani Bhagawati who was shown at SI. No. 21 figured at SI. No. 21 of the list dated 4.10.93 and the name of Sri Pronay Kumar Baruah was shown at SI. No. 22 of the list 4.10.93 in place of Smti Monamati Mahanta. Since the complete list was not annexed by the petitioner it could not be ascertained as to whether the names of Smti Monamati Mahanta and others were placed in the list 4.10.93 though their names figured in the list dated 25.4.93 annexed by the petitioner. The list dated 25.4.93 was corrected on 4.10.93 and on the basis of the materials on record the rearrangement of the names made by the authority cannot be held to be faulty. At the time of approval the concerned authority must have made rearrangement on consideration of the material facts. At any rate the aforesaid approved list was never challenged. The appointment of Smti Amiya Bhagawati and Sri Pronay Kumar Barua is also not challenged in this petition nor they are impleaded as parties. The petitioner also did not challenge the appointment of Sri Mukul Saikia whose name figured at SI. No. 27 of the list dated 25.4.93 whereas petitioner's name figured at SI. No. 41. Sri Mukul Saikia as well as the respondent No. 4 were appointed only on ad hoc basis for three months. Petitioner was also appointed in similar fashion earlier against deputation vacancy. No. 27 of the list dated 25.4.93 whereas petitioner's name figured at SI. No. 41. Sri Mukul Saikia as well as the respondent No. 4 were appointed only on ad hoc basis for three months. Petitioner was also appointed in similar fashion earlier against deputation vacancy. The appointment of Sri Mukul Saikia and respondent No. 4 was made on ad hoc arrangement and in the absence of any proof that the said persons are holding the posts, question of interfering with those appointments by this Court does not arise. 7. Petitioner claims his right to get appointment on, the strength of his empanelment in the select list. It is now ensconced that mere empanelment or inclusion of ones name in the select list does not confer any indefeasible right to be appointed. To fill up or not to fill up a post is administrative decision and unless it can be shown to be arbitrary it is not open for the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, to interfere with and direct the Govt to make further appointment. The mere existence of a vacancy does not give a legal right to a candidate for appointment nor it would entitle him for Mandamus for his appointment. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shankarasan's case (supra) observed as follows : “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. 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. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.” 8. Mr. BP Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded the aforesaid position of law as laid down by the Constitution Bench. Mr. Borah accepted that even if vacancies are only for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit the successful candidates did not acquire vested right to the post unless the relevant rules provide otherwise. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies..Mr. Mr. Borah accepted that even if vacancies are only for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit the successful candidates did not acquire vested right to the post unless the relevant rules provide otherwise. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies..Mr. Borah, the learned senior counsel, however, submitted that even in such cases the State, in the matter of public employment, owes a duty to act fairly. The State is duty bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates reflected in the test and no discrimination is permissible in that regard. I have given my anxious consideration to that aspect of the matter but as alluded earlier the appointment of those persons, as mentioned earlier, cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The three persons, namely Amiya Bhagawati, Umarani Bhagawati and Pronoy Kumar Barua admittedly figured in the select list above the petitioner. Mr. Borah, learned counsel in his usual persuasive manner next submitted that since there exists vacancies in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court should give a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment. A question naturally will arise how long a panel can be kept alive and will it be open for the Court to issue a direction to appoint persons from the same? I have already mentioned about clause (vi) of Rule 3 which enjoins that the list is valid for one year unless its validity is extended by the Govt. The lists dated 25.4.93/4.10.93 under the circumstances have lost its force and, therefore, after expiry of the said period it is not open for the Court to issue direction to appoint persons from the said panel. Mr. BP Borah, learned counsel in support of his contention referred to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sumila Boro (supra). In that case the appointing authority went beyond the select list and indiscriminately appointed persons whose name did not find place in the select list at the cost of the persons who were duly selected by the Central Recruitment Committee. In those circumstances the Court directed the 20 selected persons to be appointed in the interest of justice. In Bhagwan Parshu Ram College (supra) the Selection Committee constituted in terms of the rules selected the respondent No.4 as the Principal of the College. In those circumstances the Court directed the 20 selected persons to be appointed in the interest of justice. In Bhagwan Parshu Ram College (supra) the Selection Committee constituted in terms of the rules selected the respondent No.4 as the Principal of the College. The Managing Committee arbitrarily refused to appoint the said respondentand, therefore, he approached the High Court for appropriate direction in regard to the selection made. The High Court on examination of the matter came to a positive conclusion that selection was made in accordance with the relevant rules applicable to such selection and the reasons assigned by the college authority in not appointing the respondent No. 4 were held to be arbitrary and not germane to the appointment. The High Court accordingly allowed the petition and directed the respondents to appoint the respondent No. 4 as the Principal of the college which was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted the reasoning given by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the appointment made by the Selection Committee had to be accepted inasmuch as the relevant rules did not permit the Managing Committee to sit in judgment over such a selection made and, therefore, the view taken by the Managing Committee in this regard was wholly arbitrary. Mr. Borah, learned counsel has drawn my attention to a certificate issued by the Headmaster/ Secretary of Chekoni Borhola ME School indicating about existence of a post of Assistant Teacher in the said school. In my view no direction can be issued on the basis of the said certificate which was issued by the Headmaster on 3.4.96, more so, in view of the prescription enjoined by the rules of recruitment limiting a the validity of the list. Undoubtedly there is meaning behind the prescription of limitation so much so that such prescription limiting the validity of the panel is to ensure that other qualified persons are not deprived of the chances of applying for the posts in the coming years and being selected for appointment. 9. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.