Short Note Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the respondents/State. Perused the record. A special drive for the recruitment or the candidates belonging to the reserved category was initiated by the State Government for filling up the vacancies which stood reserved for such candidates but were lying untilled. The petitioner who belongs to OBC category was selected by the duly constituted selection committee for being appointed as against the vacancy on the post of Assistant Grade-III. A copy of the select list was sent for the implementation to the Executive Engineer Singh Pariyojana Pucca Bandh Division Manikheda Camp Shivpuri by the Collector. Shivpuri. The petitioner however, was not granted any appointment on the basis of the select list. he therefore tiled an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, claiming a direction requiring the respondent authorities to appoint him as against the vacancy on the post of Assistant Grade-III reserved for the Backward Classes in the Department concerned and in case there was no vacancy in the said Department he may he given the appointment in any other Department. The Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 5.8.1999 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding that mere selection did not entitle him to get appointed unless any person junior to him had been appointed on such post. The contesting respondents in the present case have filed two returns/counter-affidavits in opposition to the writ petition asserting that no vacancy in the post was available where the petitioner could be adjusted or appointed. It has further been indicated in the additional return that in fact even by 10.6.1998. no post was available against which any person belonging to OBC. category could be appointed. It has also been asserted that mistakenly it was, reported that the vacancies of Assistant Grade-III were available for accommodating the candidates belonging to OBC. category. The factual position as evident from the returns filed by the respondents is that neither at the time of the selection nor subsequent thereto any such post was available against which the petitioner could be granted the appointment on the basis of the selection held for the special drive to fill up the vacancies falling in the reserved category. As has already been noticed here in above. As has already been noticed here in above. the Tribunal has refused to interfere holding that the petitioner has no statutory right to get the appointment only on the strength of the selection as claimed. In this connection. it may be noticed that the' Apex Court in its decision in the case of The State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha and others. reported in AIR 1973 SC 2216 had observed that the existence of vacancies by itself does not give a legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment. The Apex Court in its later decision in the case of N. Mohanan v. State of Kerala and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1896 while referring to its earlier decision in the case of Union Territory of Chadigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 . reiterated that a candidate whose name finds place in the select list 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 or valid reason. In the present case the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that any right stood secured in favour of the petitioner to get an appointment under any statutory rule. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shivsingh v. State of M.P. reported in 1988 (1) MPWN SN 24 at Page 34. The aforesaid Division Bench decision relates to a case where the petitioner had applied for appointment as against the post of a Constable. The appointment of Constables are regulated by the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. This Court had clarified that the ground on which the appointment had been refused by the respondent-authority was that it had become too late to appoint a selectee from the waiting list which ground was not reasonable and justified. The aforesaid decision is distinguishable. As noticed here in above there is no rule having statutory force which secures any right in favour of the petitioner to get the appointment. The aforesaid decision is distinguishable. As noticed here in above there is no rule having statutory force which secures any right in favour of the petitioner to get the appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board and another v. Virendra Kumar Sharma reported in 1998 (1) JLJ 49 . In the aforesaid case the petitioner was found to have a right under the apprenticeship Act and he had completed years of apprenticeship. This Court had observed-that no provision had been shown under any Act or Rule to maintain the list only for one year. It had been found that in the absence of any statutory rules. revocation of list after one year was arbitrary when the posts were lying vacant and no fresh panel was prepared during that period. The right to get appointment in view of the provisions contained in the Apprenticeship Act was upheld. The aforesaid decision is also clearly distinguishable. In view of what has been indicated here-in-above we are not satisfied that any sufficient ground can be said to have been made out for interference while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.