Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of Junior Statistical Assistant in terms of the selection made in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 3/95. 2. The petitioners case is that the respondents published an advertisement for appointment of several posts including the post of Junior Statistical Assistant, vide Advertisement No. 3/95 dated 7.11.95 in which requisite qualification and others have been mentioned. Since the petitioner fulfilled all the requisite qualifications including experience, applied for the said post and he was interviewed. Thereafter, the respondents on scrutiny found the petitioner suitable for appointment and a selection list was prepared for appointment in different posts. It is contended that although appointment letters were issued by the respondents for appointment in different posts but appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for appointment in the post of Junior Statistical Assistant has not been issued for the reasons best known to the respondents. The petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No. 2 to that effect but neither the representation was considered nor the appointment letter was issued by the respondents. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case stating, inter alia, that pursuant to the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 141/91(R), the respondent No. 1 published an advertisement for the post of Class-III and Class-IV category. The post of Junior Statistical Assistant was also advertised and the candidates were called for interview and a panel was prepared by the Selection Committee. It is stated that the post of statistical Assistants were not filled up since the establishment of the University in 1981. The Head of Statistics Department submitted a proposal vide letter dated 12.6.97 that the post of Junior Statistical Assistant should not be filled up as the appointment of those posts will be of no use rather these posts should be transferred to the computer centre and should be filled up with the provisions having degree/diploma in computer applications. The Head of Statistics Department submitted a proposal vide letter dated 12.6.97 that the post of Junior Statistical Assistant should not be filled up as the appointment of those posts will be of no use rather these posts should be transferred to the computer centre and should be filled up with the provisions having degree/diploma in computer applications. It is further stated that the University has set up a computer centre for smooth working of the University and as such, the matter was discussed in the Board of Management in its meeting held on 13.4.98 and it was resolved that four posts of Junior Statistical Assistants sanctioned under Non-Plan be redesign Ted as Computer Assistant and be filled up by advertisement with minimum qualification of graduate with diploma in computer application. 4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, firstly submitted that when the vacancy was advertised and after interview a selection list was prepared, the appointment of the petitioner could not have been denied without any valid reason. Learned Counsel submitted that when pursuant to the advertisement several other persons were appointed in different posts then the respondents were bound to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner, who has got indefeasible right for appointment after his name was included in the panel. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel. It is well settled that merely because a candidate is found suitable for appointment and a penal is prepared, that does not give the candidate indefeasible right for appointment. In the case of Shankarsan Das V/s. Union of India -- , a Constitution Bench of the apex Court had the occasion to examine the question whether a candidate seeking appointment acquires an indefeasible right to appointment merely because of the appearance of his name in the merit list of candidates for such posts. Their Lordships observed: 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 initiation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Ordinarily, the notification merely amounts to an initiation 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. 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 bonafide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are tilled 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. 5. In the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh V/s. Dilbagh Singh and Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 134, their Lordships relying upon the decision of the Constitution Bench, held that a candidate who finds a place in the selection list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the selection list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such selection list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. 6. As noticed above, the post of statistical assistants were not filled up at any time since the establishment of the University in 1981. The Board of Management, therefore, held a meeting and considering the difficulties in running the computer section, took a decision to redesignate the post of statistical assistants to computer assistants so that the University would be able to run the computer centre on commercial basis. The decision of the Board of Directors does not appear to be mala fide or with any ill motive. The petitioner also has not made out a clear case of mala fide on the part of the respondents in not issuing appointment letter for the post of statistical assistant. 7. The decision of the Board of Directors does not appear to be mala fide or with any ill motive. The petitioner also has not made out a clear case of mala fide on the part of the respondents in not issuing appointment letter for the post of statistical assistant. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of statistical assistant. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.