JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners Hanuman Prasad and four others, all residents of Bikaner & Sriganganagar Districts of Rajasthan respectively, by way of instant writ petition, have invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court on the grounds inter alia that they appeared in the examination for the post of Accountants/Junior Accountants for direct recruitment advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer (for short 'Commission'-respondent No. 2) as the vacancies which had arisen in the office of the Director, Department of Treasury and Accounts, Jaipur (respondent No. 3). The said posts were advertised by the Commission and the petitioners appeared in the examination held by respondent No. 2 in November, 1990 and qualified the same, as per the result which was declared by the Commission on 1.4.93. The position of the petitioner No. 1 was at serial No. 26 in the reserved list. Similarly petitioner No. 2 was at serial No. 14 while petitioner No. 3 was at serial No. 4, petitioner No. 4 was at serial No. 6 and petitioner No. 5 was at serial No. 36 of the reserve list. 2. It has been contended by the petitioners that the main list of the selected candidates contained 100 names while the reserve list in which the petitioners were placed constituted 50 names and all of them were in the reserve list from amongst the 50 candidates. Since the petitioners had been denied appointment despite existence of vacancies against the reserved-quota for direct recruitment on the post of Accountants, which according to them are still lying vacant, as the respondents had given appointment to the newly selected candidates while 193 posts were still lying vacant out of which only 94 posts had been filled up as per the information of the petitioners, they have been constrained to move this Court by way of the present writ petition on 20.12.93, which after detailed hearing is being disposed of finally by this Order. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the respondents have committed grave error in not giving appointment to the candidates, which stood in the reserve list. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the respondents have committed grave error in not giving appointment to the candidates, which stood in the reserve list. They have thus violated the statutory provisions in not following the ratio as specified for recruitment on direct selection basis through competitive examination and on promotion basis which has been provided in Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1963') as per the ratio of 1:4 respectively, the petitioners have prepared a detailed chart indicating the number of posts which were required to be filled by promotion, percentage of direct recruitment, posts available for direct recruitment and also the period to which relate. The year-wise details of the tests which were to be filled through promotion from 1.4.1985 to 31.5.1990 as has been indicated in sub para (b) of para-8 of the writ petition is as under : S.No. DPC year No of posts filled by promotion % age of direct recruitment Post for direct recruitment Reference 1 1985-86 122 33.00% 40 (1.4.85 to 31.3.86) Smarika (4th July, 89) S.No. 677-798) Page 31-33 & Seniority List No. 1 S.N. 389-477. 2 1986-87 112 33.00% 37 (1.4.86 to 31.3.87) Smarika 9 July, 89) S.N. 799-910 Page 33-35; & Seniority List No. 478-536 3 1987-88 97 33.00% 32 (1.4.87 to 31.3.88 Smarika July, 88) 911-100) Page 35-36 Seniority List No. 1 663-742. 4 1988-89 159 20.00% 35 (1.4.88 to 31.3.89 Smarika, 88 (1.4.88 to 31.3.89) page 38-41 Seniority List No. 1743-880 5 1989-90 248 20.00% 49 91.4.89 to 31.3.90 Smarika (July 88 S.No. 1298-1404 Page 41-42 and form Junior Accountants Seniority List Total 738 193 S.No. 1-126 page 61-62 and 21 posts of S.C. & S.T. Seniority List N.1.S.N. 881-1072 4. On the basis of the above description, the petitioners' counsel has contended that 193 posts are still available to be filled up by direct recruitment by way of examination held in the year 1990, result of which was declared on 1.4.93. On the basis of the above description, the petitioners' counsel has contended that 193 posts are still available to be filled up by direct recruitment by way of examination held in the year 1990, result of which was declared on 1.4.93. It has been further contended in this regard that the respondents have filled 600 posts of Junior Accountants in which 400 posts have been filled from the main list white 200 from the reserve list whereas only 94 posts of Accountants have been filled from the main list while the respondents have not filed up the vacancies from the reserve list which still presist since about 100 posts are still lying vacant against the quota of direct recruitment upto 31.3.90. it has not been disputed that respondent No. 2 prepared a wait-list/reserve list containing names of 50 candidates who could be appointed directly against vacancies for the period in question which according to the petitioners are still available. 5. According to the petitioners as regards the examination held during the period 1979-1986 50% of Junior Accountants were selected from reserve list but this time, the candidates standing in the reserve list at all have not been given appointments which according to them is arbitrary and unjust, hence the respondents violated the principles of Natural Justice. Learned counsel has contended that in the year 1990 100 seats of Accountants and 400 seats of junior Accountants were advertised to be filled through combined examination of 1990 as against which only 94 seats of Accountants have been filled and 50 persons which stand in the reserve/wait list of Accountants have been denied appointment. This according to the petitioner is in violation of Rule 23(iii) of the Rules of 1963, which for the sake of ready reference is re-produced herein below : "(iii) That the Commission, may to the extent of 50% advertised vacancies keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The names of such candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in the order of merit to the Appointing Authority, within six months from the date on which the Original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Appointing Authority." On the basis of the above statutory provision, it has sought to be contended that the Commission (resp. The names of such candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in the order of merit to the Appointing Authority, within six months from the date on which the Original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Appointing Authority." On the basis of the above statutory provision, it has sought to be contended that the Commission (resp. No. 2) was bound to keep at-least 50% seats of advertised vacancies of the names of suitable candidates on the reserve list for being recommended in order of merit to the Appointing Authority and the life of penal as per sub rule (iii) of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1963 should not be extended beyond six months from the date on which the original list was forwarded by the Commission to the Appointing Authority. Hence violation of Rule 23(iii) of the Rules of 1963 has been alleged. 6. In the prayer clause, the petitioners have sought the relief from this Court (i) for issuance of appropriate writ order or direction for not conducting any examination for filling the impugned vacancies alleged to be of the period 1985-90 (ii) issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction directing the Appointing Authority (resp. No. 3) to fill up the vacancies from the reserve/wait list of the examination held in the year 1990, result of which was declared on 1.4.93. 7. As regards the first relief sought for by the petitioners regarding issuance of appropriate writ or direction to respondent No. 2 for not conducting the examination for filling up the impugned vacancies for the period 1985-90, in my view, the petitioners themselves are to be blamed for undue delay and laches in having moved this Court by way of this writ petition, which was filed belatedly on 20.12.93, as no such direction can be issued in this regard after undue delay, the relief for which has already become infructuous. 8. As regards the second prayer regarding filling up of the vacancies from the reserve/wait list of the examination held in the year 1990, from the perusal of the reply to the show cause notice, though the respondents have not disputed the issuance of the requisition for appointment by way of direct recruitment, which was sent to the 'Commission' on 24.10.90, there were in all 1487 sanctioned posts of Accountants as on 1.4.90. 20% of the said posts were meant to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. Thus, the total posts for this quota was 297 against which 205 Accountants were already working and in this way total of 92 posts were required to be filled by way of direct recruitment to which 8 more posts were added (92 + 8) which were anticipated to fall vacant in the ensuing year and thus a requisition of 100 posts was sent to the respondent Commission.Be that as it may, the law is well settled that mere empanelment of a candidate on the select list/or reserve list would by itself not confer any vested right for appointment to a candidate even though he has been declared successful in a particular examination. It is trite law that mere selection does not confer any right on the person included in the select list and therefore, except the right of consideration which even as per the petitioner's own saying has not been denied to them. Hence the right of those included in the reserve list cannot be by any stretch of imagination to be construed as superior to the right of incumbents included in the main list. 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondents did not pay any heed to the representation made by the petitioners on 25.9.93, which contention has been strongly refuted by the respondents on the ground that no such representation is available on the record nor the petitioner has annexed any such representation to this writ petition. 10. As regards the petitioner's contention raised in para 8(b) of the writ petition, it has been contended that the respondents had violated the statutory provisions of Rule 23(iii) of the Rules of 1963. It has been specifically denied by contending in reply inter alia that earlier there was 33% quota of direct recruitment for appointment on the post of Accountants. Subsequently the State Government amended the Rules vide Notification dated 23.9.88 by revising the ratio of direct recruitment vis-a-vis promotion and made it 1:4. Thus there remain 20% of quota for direct recruitment on the post of Accountants. As against the said quota, requisition for total of 100 posts was sent against which appointment orders of 103 candidates were issued. The reserve list was requisitioned as per the vacancies available. Thus there remain 20% of quota for direct recruitment on the post of Accountants. As against the said quota, requisition for total of 100 posts was sent against which appointment orders of 103 candidates were issued. The reserve list was requisitioned as per the vacancies available. Hence there is no violation of the provisions of Rule 23(iii) of the Rules of 1963. The substituted provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1963 (with recommendations of the Commission) is as under: "23. Recommendations of the Commission : (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 7, the Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the posts by direct recruitment arranged in the order of merit and forward the same Jo the Appointing Authority. Provided (i) that the Commission may, to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of such candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in the order of merit to the Appointing Authority within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Appointing Authority...." I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also examined the documents on record with reference to the relevant Rules on the subject. Prima facie in my considered view, no violation of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1963, can be alleged nor any fault much legal fault can be attributed to the respondents for the reason that the respondents had against the 33% quota on which the candidates for direct recruitment which were prepared strictly in accordance with law for appointment on the post of Accountants had revised the quota in view of the amendment to the Rules vide Notification dated 23.9.1988 by which the ratio of the direct recruitment vis-a-vis was made at 1:4. Thus, there remain only 20% quota for direct recruitment on the post of Accountants as against which requisition for 100 posts was sent by the Commission against which appointment order of 103 candidates were issued and the reserve list having been requisitioned as per the vacancies available and the appointment order have also been issued in excess of the posts requisitioned. Thus, in my view, no violation of the Rules of 1963 can at all be attributed to the respondents and who had in all fairness not only calculated the vacancies in accordance with law but also issued appointment orders strictly in compliance thereof. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the RPSC has contended that the number of vacancies which were available with the respondents in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17.11.90 for Accountants/Junior Accountants on the basis of the combined competitive examination held in the year 1990, there were 100 posts. It is only after conducting preliminary examination and thereafter second stage of examination, and finally result was declared by the Commission on 31.3.1993. The main list of selected candidates was sent on 30.4.1993 to the State Government for giving appointments to the selected candidates. The reserve list was also prepared in accordance with the Rules by the respondent-Commission. The validity of the said reserve list was only for a period of 6 months and the said statutory period as per Rule 23(iii) of the Rules of 1963 expired on 29.10.1993. Hence, the Commission had no powers to extend the validity of list beyond the said statutory period of six months, which themselves has been case to an end on 29.10.1993, could not be extended beyond the said period. 12. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the DB Judgment of this Court in the matter of (1) State of Rajasthan v. Dhanraj Sharma (1995(3) WLC (Raj.) 369) and (2) G.S. Lamba v. Union of India ( 1985(2) SCC 604 ) . While the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Government of Orissa v. Haraprasad Das 1998(1) SCC 487 ) . 13. I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decision of this Court as well as of the Apex Court. In my considered view, the ratio of the decision referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not at all attracted to the instant case for the reason that the recruitment process having been validly and lawfully adhered to by the respondents in accordance with the Rules, the scope for exercise of judicial discretion in the matter of interference in such matters is restricted since any such interference should be avoided unless the decision of the Government is arbitrary. I am fortified in my observations from the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Govt. of Orissa v. Haraprasad Das (supra), wherein the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of direction given by it to the State Government for filling up posts of Copy holders and the Director of Press had been recommended. The said decision was challenged in appeal before the Apex Court, which held as under: "Merely because there were some vacant posts of Copy holders and the Director of the press had recommended to the Government to fill up those posts, it was not open to the Tribunal to direct the Government to fill up those posts even though it had good reasons not to do so. It should have been appreciated by the Tribunal that mere empanelment or including of one's name in the selection appointed. So also if the Government decides not to make further appointments for a valid reason, it cannot be said that it has acted arbitrarily by not appointing those whose names are included in the selection list. To fill up or not to fill up a post, is a policy decision and unless it is known to be arbitrary, it is not open to the Administrative Tribunal to interfere with such decision of the Government and direct it to make further appointments. The Tribunal in directing the Government to make further appointments on efficiency ground of public administration went beyond its jurisdiction." As regards the interpretation of the relevant Rules pertaining to the recruitment of in service employees and their promotion, it was further held by the Apex Court that the Administrative Tribunal had fallen in error in holding that the selection-list prepared for direct recruitment from open market was required to be approved by the Committee and it could become a valid selection only after its approval by the said Committee. The Court further held that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate that if the selection list was not valid since it was not approved by the Committee then it could not have conferred any right in favour of those who were included in the said list and it would not be legal to make appointment of those included in such an invalid list. The life of the list having itself expired on a particular date, if was held by the Apex Court that the Government was therefore justified in not making any further appointment from the said list prepared after the expiry of the prescribed period under the Rules. Since the Tribunal had given direction to the State Government to make further appointments from the said dead-list had committed illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction, even if the said Rules was to be treated as 'directory' instead of 'mandatory', it was not for the Tribunal to direct the Government to treat it as 'live' and in force and to make further appointments from that list. 14. As a result of the above discussion, I find no force in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******