PER H.K. SEMA, CHIEF, JUSTICE (ORAL): 1. We have heard Mr. Nargal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Bhardwaj, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated: 09-10-2001 passed by learned Singly Judge in SWP No: 2664/1999, directing the respondent/appellant to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist, Agro Forestry. The aforesaid writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge in terms of the following directions:- ....This petition is accordingly allowed. Petitioner is held entitled to get his claims considered in terms of his position in the waiting list. This would be done within a period of six weeks from the date copy of the order passed by this Court is made available by the petitioner to the respondents. Fact that another interim order has been passed on 31-07-2000 directing the respondents to keep one post vacant has also been taken note of with a view to grant relief noticed above. It be seen that University which has come in existence in Jammu is a successor University and all the assets and liabilities, right and obligation which were supposed to be discharged by the parent University has come to vest in successor University, therefore, it would remain bound by the earlier decision of the University.� 3. The facts which are relevant for disposal of this appeal may be noticed. 4. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agriculture, Sciences and Technology, (for short SKU AST) under No. 02 of 1997 dated: 27-11 -1997, the respondent alongwith other eligible candidates applied for the post. As per the advertisement notice, the selection was to be made against three existing vacancies. Some time in 1999, selection was made, recommending four candidates in the order of merit. The name of the respondent figured in serial No. 4 Thereafter selected candidates were appointed by order dated: 12-06-1999. One Manoj Kumar who has been appointed to the post by order dated: 12-06-1999 did not join the post. The respondent-writ petitioner being at serial No.4, has approached the appropriate authority to appoint him in place of Mr. Manoj Kumar. His request was not considered, resulting in the filing of the writ petition registered as SWP No: 2664/1999. 5. One Manoj Kumar who has been appointed to the post by order dated: 12-06-1999 did not join the post. The respondent-writ petitioner being at serial No.4, has approached the appropriate authority to appoint him in place of Mr. Manoj Kumar. His request was not considered, resulting in the filing of the writ petition registered as SWP No: 2664/1999. 5. The said writ petition came up for motion hearing on 08-12-1999, on which date, the court passed the following interim order:- The petitioner™s case is that in terms of advertisement notice No. 02 of 1997 dated: 27-11-1997, he applied for the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist in Agro Forestry. The selection committee on the basis of interview prepared a panel in accordance with their merit, wherefrom the respondents vide order No. 312 dated: 12-06-1999 issued appointment orders by which three person got appointed. Petitioner™s further case is that one of the appointee namely Sh. Manoj Kumar has opted not to join on the post of Assistant Professor and the post is lying vacant. It is further adverted that vide University order No. 346 (Est.) of 1998 dated: 07-11-1998 eight candidates were selected and appointment orders were issued whereof three did not join, consequent upon which the respondent-University vide its order No. 212 (Est) of 1999 dated: 15-04-1999 operated upon the waiting list, drawn up for the discipline of Soil Science and appointed three other persons mentioned in the order against the said vacant posts. The petitioner thus seeks that he being similar by situated deserves to be considered by the respondents for appointment against the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist against the vacant post. Notice as above in the CMP. In the meanwhile, the respondents shall accord active consideration to the petitioners claim for the appointment. This consideration shall be accorded within the life span of the waiting list/panel. The results of the consideration to be disclosed in the objections.� 6. Thereafter another interim order is passed on 31-07-2000, directing the respondents to keep on post vacant till disposal of the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances stated above the learned Single judge was of the view that when the appointment was made on 12-06-1999 and the interim order was passed on 08-12-1999. Thereafter another interim order is passed on 31-07-2000, directing the respondents to keep on post vacant till disposal of the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances stated above the learned Single judge was of the view that when the appointment was made on 12-06-1999 and the interim order was passed on 08-12-1999. if within the warranty of select list, which according to the University Rules, shall be valid for six months, it was incumbent on the part of the University authority to consider the case of the writ petitioner/respondent herein and accordingly directed the University authority to consider the case of the respondent in terms of his position as serial No. 4 in the select list. 7. Mr. Nargal, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the validity of the select list is now over and the post has been re-advertised subsequently and the selected candidate has been appointed and. therefore, the case of the respondent cannot be considered at this belated stage. Alternately, it is urged by the counsel for the appellant that the selected candidate has no right to be appointed to the post which he applied for. 8. With regard to the validity of the select list, the submission of the counsel for the appellant that that select list has been lapsed when the respondent claimed for consideration of his case is well misplaced. The admitted fact is that the selection was made in 1999, although the advertisement was issued in 1997 and pursuant to the select list, selected candidates were appointed by order dated: 12-06-1999 and the respondent submitted his claim and filed SWP No. 2446/1999 on 18-12-1999, on which dated this court passed an interim order, as referred to above. The claim of the respondent was well within warranty of six months and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the claim of the writ petitioner was barred as select list has been lapsed. This contention of the appellant is accordingly rejected. 9. The next contention of the appellant that the select candidate has no right to be appointed is well settled principle of law enunciated by a catena of decisions by the Apex Court as well by this court. However, the aforesaid principle laid down does not take away the right of the selected candidates from consideration. 9. The next contention of the appellant that the select candidate has no right to be appointed is well settled principle of law enunciated by a catena of decisions by the Apex Court as well by this court. However, the aforesaid principle laid down does not take away the right of the selected candidates from consideration. There is no record to show that the claim of the writ petitioner was either considered pursuant to the interim direction passed by this court on 08-12-1999 nor on his own request. Normally when the last selected candidate in the merit refused to accept appointment, the necessary corollary is that the next men in the list should have been offered when the list was within the warranty. 10. We have already said that the select list was valid as the same was made for a period of six months when the respondent based his claim. From the documents available on record, it clearly appears that the appellant/appropriate authority never considered the case of the writ petition as claimed by him. Non consideration of the case of the writ petitioner would amount to depriving of his right for consideration. It is not the question of appointment. It is the question to be considered which has been denied in the instant case. 11. The third contention of the appellant that by now that post has been advertised and the candidate selected has also been appointed is believed by the another interim order passed by this court. As already said, another interim order was passed by this court on 31-07-2000, directing the respondents/appellant to keep one post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist in Agro University vacant till the disposal of the civil rule. The aforesaid civil rule was ultimately disposed on 09-10-2001. Since there was a specific direction passed by this court on 31-07-2000 for keeping one post vacant, it was not open to the University authority to advertise the vacant post by subsequent advertisement and appoint the selected candidate, even if the submission of the appellant is found to be correct. 12. There is another controversy raised by the appellant that the advertisement was issued by the University before bifurcation. In that, according to the appellant, the University has been bifurcated on 20-09-1999 into two namely SKUAST Kashmir and SKUAST Jammu. 12. There is another controversy raised by the appellant that the advertisement was issued by the University before bifurcation. In that, according to the appellant, the University has been bifurcated on 20-09-1999 into two namely SKUAST Kashmir and SKUAST Jammu. According to the counsel of the appellant, since advertisement has been issued by University before bifurcation, it is the burden of the SKUAST Kashmir to implement the court order. This point has been made amply clear by the learned Single Judge in terms of the direction as referred to above. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the University which has come in existence in Jammu is a successor University of all the assets and liabilities, right and obligation, it is the duty of the University namely SKUAST Jammu to discharge that obligation. We are entirely in agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. The directions of the learned Single Judge shall be carried out by the appellant.