This appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act is filed against the judgment dated 17.10.2000 passed by learned Single Judge in SWP No. 676/99, whereby State has been directed to determine the posts which would have become available for direct recruitment upto 1996 and in case the entitlement of the direct recruits is found more than the posts already advertised then employment is to be provided to the persons who are found next in the merit list prepared by the Public Service Commission in pursuance to Notification issued in 1995 for holding competitive examination for various gazetted services of the State. 2. In brief the facts are that selection process was initiated by the State Government for filling up 266 vacancies by holding combined competitive examination through Public Service Commission for making appointment to various posts of Kashmir Administrative Service. These vacancies included the vacancies which were to be filled from open Category and also from Reserved category. Preliminary examination was conducted and nearly 3200 candidates qualified in this test. Thereafter, main examination was held from 16th November 1996 to 9th December, 1996 and list of successful candidates was notified on 20th December 1997. The un - successful candidates approached this court in number of writ - petitions. The writ petitions were dismissed on 3.3.1999. Matter was taken in appeal, which too came to be dismissed by LPA Bench of this Court on 22.3.1999. Special Leave Petition No. 5166 - 5167/1999 and special Leave Petition (C) No. 5903 - 5905/1999 too were dismissed by the Apex Court. 3. In the second round of litigation the writ - petitioners, whose names were not in the select list filed SWP No. 676/1999 taking not only the grounds which had been raised in the earlier writ petitions but have also taken another ground which was available to writ - petitioners but was not taken, in the earlier writ petition. The ground taken is that the action of the State Government for referring 266 posts only for being filled by direct recruitment, even when the number of posts for direct recruitment was much more, is totally bad, illegal and arbitrary for the reason that the appointments to various posts in gazetted service of Kashmir Administrative Service has to be made by ratio of 50:50, as prescribed by Government Order No. 1285 - GAD of 1983 dated 20.8.83. It is also stated that contrary to ratio fixed by the Government Order dated 20.8.1983 the Government has promoted departmental candidates in excess of the quota meant for them under various Government orders and while giving go - bye to ratio of 50:50 the Government has for unjustified reasons made promotions from the promotees for in excess of their quota. It is submitted that Government was not competent to do this after having itself reserved a definite percentage to be filled up by direct recruitment, and, therefore, according to writ petitioners all such appointments made in excess of the quota meant for the promotees is illegal, arbitrary and in violation to their legal, statutory and fundamental rights, and thus is required to be quashed. The writ - petitioners further submitted that State be directed to remove the disparity by making appointments from the panel prepared by the Public Service Commission beyond the panel of 266 candidates prepared by it, to the extent of rectifying the imbalance and restoring parity in the ratio of 50:50 as envisaged by Govt. Order No. 1285 - GAD of 1983 dated 20.8.1983 between direct recruitment and promotees. 4. The State Government contested the claim of writ - petitioners by submitting that the points which they have raised in the earlier writ - petition cannot be allowed to be raised again on the ground of res-judicata. The State further submitted that validity of selection has already been upheld upto the Apex Court and second round of litigation is totally unwarranted. 5. So far as grounds `A to `L raised in SWP No. 676/99 are concerned, the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned in this appeal, has held that these have already been dealt with in earlier round of litigation and need not be looked into once again. As regards the ratio proportion, the State Government has been directed to maintain the same in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Parkash v. State of J & K Ors., 2000 (3) SCJ 34. The learned Single Judge further directed that the State Government would remove the imbalance in the ratio proportion and would take decision in this regard by 31st January 2001 and would consider the cases of those petitioners who are next in the merit after completing the process of determination of ratio proportion of direct recruitees and promotees. The learned Single Judge further directed that the State Government would remove the imbalance in the ratio proportion and would take decision in this regard by 31st January 2001 and would consider the cases of those petitioners who are next in the merit after completing the process of determination of ratio proportion of direct recruitees and promotees. 6. State on being aggrieved by the aforesaid directions of the learned Single Judge, has come in appeal before this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that direction of the learned Single Judge is not in public interest, because the writ - petitioners cannot usurp the right of consideration of those candidates who expect consideration against the posts which have yet to fall vacant. Learned counsel further submitted that after Notification of vacancies for direct recruitments in 1995, yet another selection process has taken place and, therefore, the impugned directions are not warranted. 8. In answer to aforesaid submission, Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court dated 27.8.1992 in Civil Appeal No. 3495 of 1992 : State of J&K etc. etc. v. Javaid Iqbal & Ors. etc. etc. arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 510 of 1992. Copy of judgment produced by learned counsel is taken on record. Learned counsel further submitted that writ -- petitioners have also right to be considered for the posts which were meant for direct recruits but were not notified, on the basis of merit they had obtained in the combined competitive examination. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the Parties at length, and carefully gone through the record of this case. 10. In Suraj Parkash Gupta & Ors v. State of J & K & Ors. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the Parties at length, and carefully gone through the record of this case. 10. In Suraj Parkash Gupta & Ors v. State of J & K & Ors. (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court after noticing that State of Jammu & Kashmir has been flouting basic Rules of Recruitment by granting relaxation of the Rules of direct recruitment as also the Rules requiring consultation with PSC/DPC for promotions/ recruitment by transfer in order to ensure that this is not done in future, decided to give following general directions to the State of J&K: "(A) The State of Jammu and Kashmir shall appoint a high level committee within a month from today to go into the question as to whether in any department in Government service, direct recruitment of existing vacancies has not been made and if there was unreasonable delay. The State will consider making direct recruitment expeditiously depending on the needs in the service and other relevant factors. But it will ensure that no promotees are put in the direct recruitment quota, temporarily or on stop - gap or ad hoc basis unless simultaneously proceedings are initiated for direct recruitment through the Service Commission. The Committee will recommend in what manner the direct recruitment could keep pace with promotions as contemplated by Rules. (B) Similarly, the Committee will find out in which department the adhoc/stop - gap promotees are languishing without their cases being referred to the Service Commission/DPC for regularization within their quota. (C) The State of Jammu and Kashmir will ensure that no relaxation of basic Recruitment Rules is made for direct recruitment through PSC, or for purposes of regular promotions/recruitment by transfer. The recommendations of the Committee referred to above may be considered by Government and implemented in accordance with the Rules and in accordance with law without unreasonable delay." 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that State Government is in the process of removing some of the imbalances and exercise in this regard is still on and imbalance if any would be removed in the coming selection. According to learned counsel writ - petitioners whose names admittedly were not in the select list of 1995, cannot be directed to be considered for the selection made in 1995. 12. According to learned counsel writ - petitioners whose names admittedly were not in the select list of 1995, cannot be directed to be considered for the selection made in 1995. 12. We find that this contention of learned counsel appearing for the State - appellant is well merited. It is now well settled that inclusion of candidates in merit list or waiting list in excess of notified vacancies confer no right on the excess candidates to claim that fresh recruitment cannot be resorted to unless they are appointed. In (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 283, Sanjoy Bhattacharjee v. Union of India & Ors., their Lordship of the Supreme Court have opined that merely because the petitioner has been put in the waiting list, he does not get any vested right to appointment, and for subsequent vacancies everyone in the open market is entitled to apply for consideration of his claim on merits in accordance with law and it would be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. Their Lordship of the Supreme Court have held that direction sought for, not to fill up the vacancies having arisen subsequently until the candidates in waiting list are exhausted, cannot be granted. 13. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rafiquddin & Ors., 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 401, their Lordship of the supreme Court while considering how long the list of candidates for a particular examination can be utilized for appointment, have observed as under: " There is no express provision in the Rules as to for what period the list prepared under Rule 19 can be utilised for making appointment to the service. In the absence of any provision in the Rules a reasonable period must be followed during which the appointment on the basis of the result of a particular examination should be made. The State Government and the Commission had announced 85 vacancies for being filled up through the competitive examination of 1970. In normal course, 85 vacancies could be filled on the basis of the result of the competitive examination of 1970 but if all the vacancies could not be filled up on account of non - availability of suitable candidates, the appointment to the remaining vacancies could be made on the basis of the result of the subsequent competitive examination. In normal course, 85 vacancies could be filled on the basis of the result of the competitive examination of 1970 but if all the vacancies could not be filled up on account of non - availability of suitable candidates, the appointment to the remaining vacancies could be made on the basis of the result of the subsequent competitive examination. The unfilled vacancies of 1970 Examination could not be filled after 5 years as subsequent competitive examinations of the year 1972 and of the year 1973 had taken place and the results had been declared. The list prepared by the Commission on the basis of the competitive examination of a particular year could be utilised by the government for making appointment to the service before the declaration of the result of the subsequent examination. If selected candidates are available for appointment on the basis of the competitive examination of subsequent years, it would be unreasonable and unjust to revise the list of earlier examination by changing norms to fill up the vacancies as that would adversely affect the right of those selected at the subsequent examination in matters relating to their seniority under Rule 22. The 1970 Examination could not be utilised as a perennial source or inexhaustible reservoir for making appointments indefinitely. The result of a particular examination must come to an end at some point of time, like a `dead ball in cricket. It could not be kept alive for years to come for making appointments." 14. In Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K and Ors. (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 486, their Lordship of the Supreme Court opined that where under requisition from the Government, the Public Service Commission prepared a select list of candidates in excess of the specified number of vacancies, then appointments from the list can be made only as specified in the list and none other, and once the requisitioned vacancies are filled, the list stands exhausted. In this case before the Supreme Court, there was a requisition by the Government for 11 vacancies but the commission sent names of more candidates and in that context their Lordships said: "It is no doubt true that even if requisition is made by the Government for 11 posts the Public Service Commission may send merit list of suitable candidates which may exceed 11. That by itself may not be bad but at the time of giving actual appointments the merit list has to be so operated that only 11 vacancies are filled up. In such an eventuality, candidates in excess of 11 who are lower in the merit list of candidates can only be treated as wait - listed candidates in order of merit to fill only the 11 vacancies for which recruitment has been made, in the event of any higher candidate not being available to fill the 11 vacancies for any reason. Once the 11 vacancies are filled by candidates taken in order of merit from the select list that list will get exhausted, having served its purpose." 15. Their Lordships further observed that "if the requisitioned vacancies are not filled and if Rule provides that the select list will have a life of one year from the date of Publication in the Government Gazette or till exhaustion by appointment of candidates, whichever is earlier, the moment the year is over the list gets exhausted. In either event, thereafter, if further vacancies are to be filled in or remaining vacancies are to be filled in after one year, a fresh process of recruitment is to be initiated giving a fresh opportunity to all the open - market candidates to compete." 16. In the present case after 1995 selection, another selection has already taken place and one other is under process of the Public Service Commission and, therefore, writ - petitioners, i.e. respondents before us, who were not in the selection list of 1995, cannot stake any claim to the vacancies meant for direct recruits which were not notified in 1995 selection. They have a right, if eligible, to compete in any ensuing selection process. 17. In the case of Javaid Iqbal (supra) citied by learned counsel for the respondents, the Public Service Commission on receipt of the requisition from the State Government issued a Notification in the year 1979 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appearing in the combined competitive examination. 2500 candidates are said to have applied. A list of 529 selected candidates was sent to the Government by the commission. The State Government appointed 265 candidates out of the list submitted by the Public Service Commission. The candidates shown in the list of 529 selected candidates, who were not appointed by the State Government, challenged the selection. 2500 candidates are said to have applied. A list of 529 selected candidates was sent to the Government by the commission. The State Government appointed 265 candidates out of the list submitted by the Public Service Commission. The candidates shown in the list of 529 selected candidates, who were not appointed by the State Government, challenged the selection. The Division Bench of this Court did not set aside the selection and appointment but directed the State Government to appoint the writ - petitioners and others out of 529 candidates selected by the Public Service Commission and rectify the imbalance between the departmental promotees and the direct recruits. The State Government took the matter to the Supreme Court and their Lordships of the Supreme Court modified the relief granted by the High Court to the extent that only the candidates who filed writ petitions in the High Court or before the Supreme Court are entitled to be appointed in terms of the judgment of the High Court. 18. In our view, the present case is not on parity with the case of Javed Iqbal (Supra). In the case of Javed Iqbal (supra) although specific number of vacancies were not notified and a select list of 529 candidates was submitted to the State by the Public Service Commission. However, in the present case the specific number of vacancies were notified and writ - petitioners in this case were not on select list submitted by the Public Service Commission to the State Government. 19. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the direction of the learned Single Judge, whereby State Government has been directed to consider the case of writ - petitioners after completing the process of determination of ratio proportion of direct recruitees and promotees, is set aside. In consequence thereof, writ petition filed by the writ-petitioners is dismissed. No costs.