P.P. NAOLEKAR, CJ.— On 8.7.99 the Rural Works Department of Government of Arunachal Pradesh requisitioned from Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short "the Commission") names for filling up 12 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil). This requisition was sent back by the Commission as it was found defective and the Government was requested to submit a fresh requisition. On 13.10.99 the Rural Works Department resubmitted a fresh requisition for 12 posts of the Assistant Engineer (Civil). In the requisition form the number of vacancies sought to be filled in by the Commission stated to be 12 in numbers. It was stated that no vacancy is expected to occur during the year. In pursuance of the requisition made for filling up 12 vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Civil) the Commission published an advertisement on 16.11.99 and thereafter conducted written test and viva-voce. On 23.5.2000 after conduct of the written test and viva-voce the Rural Works Department requested the Commission to send 6 more names over and above the advertised vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Civil). But on the very next day i.e. 24.5.2000 the Rural Works Department sent another letter withdrawing the request made by the letter dated 23.5.2000. Thereafter the result of the examination was declared on 26.5.2000. On 30.5.2002 names of 12 numbers of selected candidates were furnished to the Rural Works Department for necessary action. 2. After the Commission has sent the names of the candidates of the advertised vacancies a communication dated 2.6.2000 was sent by the Rural Works Department requesting the Commission to furnish 5 additional names for the purpose of filling up the anticipated vacancies, which were supposed to occur within a period of one year. When the Commission did not respond to the request made by the Department three non selected candidates submitted representation to the Commission requesting it to act in conformity with the letter of the Rural Works Department dated 2.6.2000. But the Commission refused to oblige the request made by the three non-selected candidates and therefore, they filed a writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus against the Commission directing to furnish 5 additional names of selected candidates for filling up the anticipated vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). But the Commission refused to oblige the request made by the three non-selected candidates and therefore, they filed a writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus against the Commission directing to furnish 5 additional names of selected candidates for filling up the anticipated vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 31.8.2000 allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that in the original advertisement dated 16.11.99 as it has been mentioned that the number of posts is subject to variation it was incumbent on the part of the Commission to send the names of 5 additional candidates, whose names have been requisitioned by the Rural Works Department and the Commission cannot refuse to send the names. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the present appeal is filed challenging the directions of the learned Single Judge. Neither does it appear from the petition filed by the petitioners/respondents nor from the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge that the Commission has prepared a waiting list of the candidates in order of merit after the names of 12 candidates have been selected as per advertisement. Even if it may be taken that the Commission has prepared a waiting list after the selection of the candidates for the post which have been advertised, the Commission could not have any authority to send the names of those candidates over and above the selected candidates as per the advertisement. 4. In the matter of Gujrat State Dy Executive Engineers Association -V.- State of Gujrat & others, reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCO 591, the Apex Court has explained the scope and extent of reserve list and as to how it is to operate in service jurisprudence and held that a waiting list prepared in service matters by the Competent Authority is a list of eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidates. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the Competent Authority prepares a waiting list then waiting list is in respect of those 10 seats only, for which selection or competition was held. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the Competent Authority prepares a waiting list then waiting list is in respect of those 10 seats only, for which selection or competition was held. The waiting list cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment for filling up the vacancies advertised. The court did not approve the view of High Court that since vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, candidates from waiting list were liable to be appointed. The candidates in reserve list had no vested right to be appointed, except to the limited extent when a candidate selected for the existing vacancies does not join for some reason and the reserve list is still operative. 5. In the matter of State of Bihar and Another -V- Madan Mohan Singh and others, reported in 1994 (supp) (3) SCC 308, a question arose whether after appointment of 32 candidates as per advertisement more persons could be appointed from the waiting list. The Apex Court held that when 32 advertised vacancies were filled up, the process of selection of 32 vacancies got exhausted and came to an end. If the same list has to be kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up of other vacancies, it would amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who would have become eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and the selection process. To fill up other vacancies a fresh advertisement has to be issued. 6. In Madan Lal and others - V- State of Jammu & Kashmir and others, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court is that advertised vacancies only can be filled up from the reserve list and the actual appointments to the post have to be confined to the posts of recruitment to which the requisition is sent by the Government. 7. In Prem Singh -V- Haryana State Electricity Board, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 319 , the Apex Court held that for the purpose of appointment the State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments for the posts failing thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. In Prem Singh -V- Haryana State Electricity Board, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 319 , the Apex Court held that for the purpose of appointment the State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments for the posts failing thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. It is clear from this decision that the advertised vacancies can only be filled up form the select list or the reserve list and it is only in the exceptional circumstances the normal rule can be deviated for the reasons given in a policy decision and the appointment can be given on the post which fell vacant after the advertisement was issued. 8. The view taken by the Apex Court is reiterated in the matter of Surendra Singh and others - V- State of Punjab and others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 488 , wherein it has been held that the waiting list cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment for filling up the vacancies not advertised. The candidates in waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except to a limited extent that a candidate selected against the advertised vacancy did not join for some reason and the reserve list is still operative. 9. The principles enunciated by the aforesaid decisions of the Highest Court of the land, it is clear that it shall be improper exercise of power to make appointments over and above the advertised vacancies. It is only in rare and exceptional circumstances and in emergent situation this Rule can be deviated. It is clearly spelled out by the Supreme Court that such a policy decision can be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness. Once the process of selection is over the whole exercise is over and the Commission become a functus-officio to send the names of candidates requisitioned subsequent to the selection process is being completed, over and above the posts advertised. It is, therefore, incumbent on the Government to take into account the existing vacancies and anticipated vacancies while advertising the vacancies to be filled in. 10. In the case in hand, at the request of the Department the Commission published advertisement for filling up the existing 12 vacancies and the whole process is completed and the names of 12 candidates have been sent by the Commission. 10. In the case in hand, at the request of the Department the Commission published advertisement for filling up the existing 12 vacancies and the whole process is completed and the names of 12 candidates have been sent by the Commission. No such Rule is brought to the notice of the Court whereunder the Commission has been authorised to prepare a waiting list or a reserve list nor it has been pointed out as to what shall be the life span of the waiting list of the reserve list. In the absence of any provision for preparation of reserve list or waiting list the process of selection is completed and the Commission cannot be directed to furnish additional names for filling up anticipated vacancies. 11. The Government has no authority to requisition the names of the candidates over and above the advertised vacancies. Under the circumstances, the Commission was within its authority in not sending the names of the candidates requisitioned by the Rural Works Department after the selection process was completed. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the impugned judgment and order dated 31.8.2000 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 189 (AP)/2000 is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court and is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.