R. M. DOSHIT, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these petitions raise identical questions of law in similar set of facts. The petitions are, therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 10972 of 2002 was appointed as Child Development Project Officer in Integrated Child Development Services [hereinafter referred to as, "icds"] in the year 1992. She has since been working as such. The I. C. D. S is sponsored by the Central Government. It has sanctioned certain posts to be created in ICDS. One of the cadres sanctioned is that of Programme Officer Class-I. The State Government has, under its Notification dated 25th October, 1996 issued in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, framed the Recruitment Rules called as, "the Programme Officer, Class-I [integrated Child Development Services] Recruitment Rules, 1996. Rule-2 thereof provides for appointment to the post of Programme Officer [class-I] (ICDS) either by promotion of the Child Development Project Officers [class-II] of proved merit and efficiency or by direct selection. Rule-3 thereof provides for the ratio between the direct selection and the promotion as that of 1:2. Rule-4 thereof provides for eligibility for appointment by direct selection. It further appears that the said post and the staff appointed are continued from year to year depending upon the continuance of the projects and the sanction received from the Central Government. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the advertisement published on 4th November, 1997, the said petitioner had applied for selection for appointment to the post of Programme Officer, Class-I. The petitioner was called for interview by the Gujarat Public Service Commission, the respondent no. 2 herein [hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"]. She was selected and was placed on the Wait List at Serial No. 2. Pursuant to her selection by the Commission and placement at Serial No. 2 on the wait list, on a representation made by the petitioner, she was appointed as a Programme Officer [class-I] under Government Resolution dated 1 2/09/2001. The said appointment was made on adhoc basis for a period of one year, subject to, inter alia, the Commission according its approval to the said appointment. The Commission, however, did not grant approval. The said petitioners service, therefore, was terminated under the Government Resolution dated 16th October, 2002. The said appointment was made on adhoc basis for a period of one year, subject to, inter alia, the Commission according its approval to the said appointment. The Commission, however, did not grant approval. The said petitioners service, therefore, was terminated under the Government Resolution dated 16th October, 2002. Feeling aggrieved, the said petitioner has preferred the above Special Civil Application No. 10972 of 2002. ( 4 ) THE petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 10977 of 2002 also claims that she is eligible for appointment as Programme Officer [class-I] by direct selection. Pursuant to the above referred advertisement published on 4/11/1997, the said petitioner also had applied for selection for appointment to the post of Programme Officer [class-I]. She was called for interview by the Commission. She was selected and was placed at serial no. 1 on the Wait-list. Pursuant to the representation made by the said petitioner, under Government Resolution dated 12/09/2001, she was appointed as Programme Officer [class-I] on ad hoc basis for a period of one year subject to, inter alia, the Commission approving her appointment. The Commission, however, did not accord its approval. Consequently, the petitioners service was terminated under Government Resolution dated 16th October, 2002. Feeling aggrieved, the said petitioner has preferred above Special Civil Application No. 10977 of 2002. ( 5 ) MR. Upadhyay has submitted that ICDS is sponsored by the Central Government. Unless the projects are taken up and the grant is utilized, the grant available would lapse. It was, therefore, essential that the projects approved and sponsored by the Central Government are completed within the time frame. Considering the necessity of carrying out various projects, some fifteen posts of Programme Officers [class-I] were sanctioned. Since then, five more posts of Programme Officers [class-I] were sanctioned. Thus, as on today, as many as 20 posts of Programme Officers [class-I] are sanctioned. However, in the year 1997, only five posts were advertised by the Commission. Amongst the said 5 posts, one post was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and one post was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. Therefore, only 3 posts were available to the open merit candidates. The Commission had prepared a select list of 3 candidates amongst the candidates selected on open merit. These three persons selected and recommended by the Commission were appointed as Programme Officers [class-I]. Therefore, only 3 posts were available to the open merit candidates. The Commission had prepared a select list of 3 candidates amongst the candidates selected on open merit. These three persons selected and recommended by the Commission were appointed as Programme Officers [class-I]. He has submitted that no suitable scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidate was available. Hence, of the five posts advertised 3 posts were filled in and 2 posts were still lying vacant. Pending the selection procedure, the State Government under its Resolution dated 8/03/1999 revised its roster for reserved category candidates. Under the said revised roster, amongst first five posts by direct selection, one post is reserved for Socially and Educationally Backward Class candidate, while no post is reserved either for a scheduled caste candidate or for a scheduled tribe candidate. Thus, from the first 5 posts, 4 posts were required to be filled-in by open merit candidates. He has further submitted that against the 5 posts advertised, the Commission had selected 5 persons and out of the panel of 5 persons, three persons were recommended for appointment as Programme Officer [class-I]. Under the revised roster, one more post had become available for appointment of a candidate of unreserved category and the post reserved for Socially and Educationally Backward Class was also available for appointment and it also could have been filled in by appointment of a selected candidate of unreserved category. Accordingly, the petitioners had made representations to the State Government before the expiry of the Wait List. The State Government had, considering the prevailing roster and the administrative exigency, offered appointment to the petitioners. The said appointment for all practical purposes was a permanent appointment, except that the approval of the Commission was required since the petitioners were placed on the wait list and their names were not sponsored by the Commission. The fitness of things required that the Commission ought to have accorded its approval to the appointment of the petitioners. However, such approval has been denied on extraneous grounds as it is disclosed in the counter affidavit. In support of his arguments, Mr. Upadhyay has relied upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers Association vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors. However, such approval has been denied on extraneous grounds as it is disclosed in the counter affidavit. In support of his arguments, Mr. Upadhyay has relied upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers Association vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors. [jt 1994 (3) SC 559] and of this Court in the matter of Mukesh B. Desai vs. State of Gujarat [ 1997 (3) GCD 645 ]. ( 6 ) THE learned AGP Mr. Abichandani has appeared for the State Government and has contested the petition. He has strenuously urged that the petitioners being on Wait List had no right to employment. The appointment given to them was ad hoc and subject to approval of the Commission. Since the Commission did not approve their appointment, their service had been terminated in accordance with the terms of their appointment. The petitioners, therefore, cannot have a legitimate grievance against the termination of their service nor the petitioners have a right to employment. Mr. Abichandani has relied upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Gopal Krushna Rath vs. M. A. A Baig [dead] by L. Rs. and Ors. [ air 1999 SC 2093 ]; of K. Jaymohan v. State of Kerala and Ors. [ air 1997 SC 2619 ], of All India SC and ST Employees Association and Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen and Anr. [2000 (6) SCC 380] of State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma and Anr. [ 2002 (1) SCC 113 ] and of N. T Devin Katti and Ors. vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. [ 1990 (3) SCC 157 ]. ( 7 ) MR. Shah has appeared for the Commission and has contested the petition. He too has relied upon the above referred judgment in the matter of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association. He has submitted that only three posts of Programme Officer [class-I] were advertised for open merit candidates. The petitioners were found suitable, were selected and placed on the merit list at serial nos. 4 and 5. The petitioners were, therefore, placed on the Wait List. Against the three posts advertised for general category candidates, three candidates have been selected and appointed. No further general category candidate can claim appointment on the posts reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates, as advertised. 4 and 5. The petitioners were, therefore, placed on the Wait List. Against the three posts advertised for general category candidates, three candidates have been selected and appointed. No further general category candidate can claim appointment on the posts reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates, as advertised. He has further submitted that a change in the roster on 8/03/1999 shall have no effect upon the selection made by the Commission. Even if there is a change in the roster pending the selection procedure, the posts already advertised are required to be filled in by a particular category of candidate as advertised. The petitioners do not get automatic right to employment on such posts merely because they belong to a particular category of candidates and would have been entitled to appointment under the revised roster. Besides, such situation has arisen in selection for many cadres where the selection process had commenced prior to 8/03/1999 but was completed after the said date. Any exception made in case of the petitioners would result into an anomaly and would be discriminatory against such others. ( 8 ) IN the matter of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association [supra], the Honble Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the question with respect to the rights of the wait listed candidates. The Honble Supreme Court held that,". . A candidate in the waiting list in the order of merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one or the other selected candidate does not join. But once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason within the period the list is to operate under the rules or within reasonable period where no specific period is provided then candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was held for it. She has no vested right except to the limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous reasons. "it is further held that,". . A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. She has no vested right except to the limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous reasons. "it is further held that,". . A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. "relying upon the above observations made by the Honble Supreme Court, Mr. Upadhyay has strenuously urged that the right to appointment of the candidates on the wait list is not limited to the posts which are advertised and have remained unfilled on account of concerned candidate not accepting appointment. Even in case where such appointments are offered and accepted, the Government has a right to operate the wait list and appoint the persons, if the administrative exigency so warrants. In the present case also, as recorded hereinabove, there was an urgency to fill up the post of Programme Officer [class-I]. More particularly when against twenty posts sanctioned by the Central Government, only five posts were advertised. Moreover, against the five posts advertised, only five persons were selected. The petitioner could, therefore, be validly appointed on such posts which have remained unfilled for want of availability of the candidates belonging to the reserved categories and in view of the revised roster. ( 9 ) IN the matter of Mukesh B. Desai [supra], this Court negatived the claim for continuance in service made by the ad hoc appointees as against the person selected by the Public Service Commission. The Honble Supreme Court held that, ". . In the present case, the appellants had appeared before the G. P. S. C. and they either did not figure in the waiting list at all or they are placed in waiting list at a lower position. The ad hoc appointments to the reserved posts are made from the waiting list on ad hoc basis according to merit. We see no reason why the respondents should not be allowed to do so. The ad hoc appointments to the reserved posts are made from the waiting list on ad hoc basis according to merit. We see no reason why the respondents should not be allowed to do so. The appointments which are being made are those of Lecturers. The names of the persons in the waiting list have been arranged according to the order of merit. It is in the public interest that a more meritorious person should be appointed as an ad hoc Lecturer, in preference to an existing ad hoc Lecturer, who is not as meritorious as the person to be appointed. The appellants have no right to remain in the ad hoc post, to which they were so appointed. Their merit was judged with the merit of the other candidates and when other candidates merit was found to be superior than that of the appellants, then it is in the public interest that more meritorious persons are appointed to man the posts. We, therefore, see no illegality or threatened illegality being committed by making appointments on ad hoc basis from waiting list according to merit. " in the matter of Gopal Krushna Rath [supra], pending the selection procedure, there was a change in the eligibility requirement. The appellant who was eligible under hitherto requirements did not possess the modified qualification and became ineligible for appointment to the post in question. Nevertheless, the appellant was selected and appointed to the post in question. In challenge to the said selection and appointment, the Honble Supreme Court held that,". . WHEN the selection process has actually commenced and the last date for inviting applications is over, any subsequent change in the requirement regarding qualifications by the University Grants Commission will not affect the process of selection which has already commenced. "drawing analogy, Mr. Abichandani has submitted that change in roster subsequent to the commencement of the selection procedure shall not give right to appointment to the petitioners. The appointment can be made in accordance with the roster which was prevalent and as indicated in the advertisement. ( 10 ) IN the matter of K. Jayamohan [supra], the Honble Supreme Court has held that,". . . IT is settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right for appointment. ( 10 ) IN the matter of K. Jayamohan [supra], the Honble Supreme Court has held that,". . . IT is settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right for appointment. It is open to the Government to make the appointment or not. Even if there is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same. But the appointing authority must give reasonable explanation for non-appointment. Equally, the Public Service Commission/ recruitment agency shall prepare waiting list only to the extent of anticipated vacancies. " ( 11 ) IN the matter of All India SC and ST Employees Association and Anr. [supra], the Honble Supreme Court has relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench decision in the matter of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [ (1991) 3 SCC 47 ]. In paragraph no. 7 reproduced in the judgment, it is held that,". . IT is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment tests, and no discrimination can be permitted. " ( 12 ) IN the matter of State of Punjab [supra] also, similar is the view expressed by the Honble Supreme Court. It is held that,". . THE notification issued inviting applications was in respect of one post and the first candidate in the select panel was not only offered but on his acceptance of offer came to be appointed and it was only subsequently that he came to resign. It is held that,". . THE notification issued inviting applications was in respect of one post and the first candidate in the select panel was not only offered but on his acceptance of offer came to be appointed and it was only subsequently that he came to resign. With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exit and has outlived its utility and, at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. " ( 13 ) IN the matter of N. T Devin Katti and Ors. [supra], once again, the case was that of change in the requirements pending the selection procedure. The Honble Court held that,". . CANDIDATES who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallizes on the date of publication of advertisement, however, he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. " ( 14 ) THE questions that arise in the present group of petitions are : (a) do the petitioners who were selected and placed on the wait list have a right to employment; (b) did the State Government invoke its power to operate the wait list in view of the extreme administrative exigency; and (c) does the Government Resolution dated 8/03/1999 contemplate completion of the pending selection procedure in accordance with the revised roster. ( 15 ) IN the present group of petitions, the Commission had on 4/11/1997 invited applications for selection for appointment to 5 posts of Programme Officer [icds] in the Gujarat Public Health Services {class-I}. Of the said 5 posts, one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste Candidate, one was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. ( 15 ) IN the present group of petitions, the Commission had on 4/11/1997 invited applications for selection for appointment to 5 posts of Programme Officer [icds] in the Gujarat Public Health Services {class-I}. Of the said 5 posts, one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste Candidate, one was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Thus, only three posts were available for appointment of candidates of unreserved category. ( 16 ) PURSUANT to the interview held, 5 unreserved category candidates were selected by the Commission. Three candidates were placed on the select list and were recommended by the Commission for appointment against the 3 vacancies advertised for unreserved category candidates and the said 3 persons have been appointed. All the said 3 persons have accepted the appointment and have joined the service. The remaining 2 selected candidates, the petitioners herein, were placed on the wait list. Since no suitable candidate from the reserved categories was available, no candidate in the reserved categories was selected. The select list was prepared on 6th October, 1999. The wait list was operative for a period of two years i. e. , till 5/10/2001. During the pendency of the selection procedure the Government under Government Reolution dated 8/03/1999, revised the roster for appointment by direct selection. Under the revised roster amongst the first 5 posts by direct selection one post is reserved for Socially and Educationally Backward Class candidate while 4 posts are available for appointment of candidates of unreserved category. The petitioners, under their representations made on 8th June, 2000, claimed that in view of the revised roster neither of the first 5 posts was reserved either for Scheduled Caste candidate or for Scheduled Tribe candidate. The petitioners being one of the first 5 selected candidates, they be appointed as Programme Officer [class-I]. The State Government in Health and Family Welfare Department, under its communication dated 29/11/2000 requisitioned two more persons - one of unreserved category and one of other Backward Class for appointment as Programme Officer [icds] Class-I. The said requisition has been followed by the communications dated 1 9/03/2001 and 19th May, 2001 of the State Government in its General Administration Department. The tenor of the said communication appears to be that in view of the revised roster, the two posts advertised as reserved for Reserved category candidates can be filled in by unreserved category candidates and that there were 16 vacant posts of Programme Officers [class-I] which were required to be filled in in the interest of I. C. D. S Projects. ( 17 ) THE law relating to preparation of the select list and the wait list, the operation thereof and the right of the person selected to appointment is well traversed and does not require a great deal of deliberation. Suffice it to say that it is the consistent view of the Honble Supreme Court and the High Courts that a person selected for appointment has no indefeasible right to appointment. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. If the vacancies are filled in, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates. As to the candidates included in the wait list, it is also well settled that such candidates have no right to appointment. A wait list may be operated only in case the selected candidate does not accept the appointment or in case of extreme exigency. Further, it is also well settled that all vacancies in public service are required to be advertised and only such posts can be filled in which are advertised. A change in the recruitment rules or for that matter roster during the selection procedure, shall not affect the selection procedure already commenced. The selection procedure once commenced shall be completed, as indicated in the advertisement, unless a contrary intention is spelt out. ( 18 ) PARAGRAPH 8 of the Government Resolution dated 8/03/1999 provides for the procedure where the selection procedure had already commenced prior to 8th March, 1999 but was not yet completed on the said date. The said paragraph 8 provides that the said Resolution shall come into operation on the date of its publication. However, in cases where the final selection is made, no change shall be effected. The roster shall be adjusted in future. In other cases, the selection should be kept in abeyance and the selection shall be made in accordance with the revised roster. However, in cases where the final selection is made, no change shall be effected. The roster shall be adjusted in future. In other cases, the selection should be kept in abeyance and the selection shall be made in accordance with the revised roster. The said Resolution is also accompanied by a schedule setting out the procedure for implementing the revised roster. However, it does not deal with a situation like the present one. Even the State Government in its communication dated 19th May, 2001 has admitted that the Government has not framed any policy for dealing with the situation like the present one. In absence of any specific policy decision by the State Government, it is but natural that the selection should be made in accordance with the advertisement. If a suitable candidate in a particular category is not available, unless the contrary intention is indicated in the advertisement, such post cannot be made available for other categories of candidates. In the present case, the advertisement published by the Commission did not mention that the posts reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates; if remain unfilled, would be filled in by general category candidates. In absence of such express provision made in the advertisement, ordinarily, the said reserved posts cannot be filled in by general category candidates. Even the Government Resolution dated 8/03/1999 does not disclose the Government intention of automatic adjustment of the posts already advertised, according to the revised roster. The intention is, save where the selection procedure has already commenced and the select list is finalized, all existing vacancies shall be filled-in in accordance with the revised roster by fresh selection. It is not the submission of either of the learned advocates that even as a general policy of the Government, in cases where reserved posts are not filled in for want of availability of suitable candidates, such posts can be filled in by appointment of candidates of unreserved category placed on the wait list. Hence, in my view, where the selection procedure had commenced prior to 8/03/1999, any unfilled vacancy at such selection shall be filled in in order of revised roster. For filling up such vacancy in order of revised roster, a fresh selection should be made. The candidate selected and placed on the wait list, therefore, cannot claim appointment in order of revised roster. For filling up such vacancy in order of revised roster, a fresh selection should be made. The candidate selected and placed on the wait list, therefore, cannot claim appointment in order of revised roster. The present petitioners, therefore, had no right to appointment on the posts which were advertised as reserved posts on account of non availability of reserved category candidates or of revision in roster. ( 19 ) WHETHER can it be said that in the instant case, the State Government had exercised its power to call for the names of the wait listed candidates in view of the administrative exigency. That also does not appear to be the case. It should be noted that the advertisement was issued in the year 1997 whereas the selection was made in the month of October, 1999. The requisition for wait listed persons made by the Government in its Health and Family Welfare Department is of 29/11/2000 i. e. , more than a year after the date of the select list. The said requisition dated 29/11/2000 also does not indicate a case of administrative exigency. On the contrary, the said requisition was made keeping in view the revised roster issued under Government Resolution dated 8/03/1999. The administrative exigency has been spelt out for the first time by the Government in its General Administration Department vide communication dated 19/03/1999. To me, the exigency indicated by the General Administration Department appears to be vague and to be an afterthought. The Government machinery seems to have been set into motion by the representation made by the petitioners and the State Government of its own has not felt any administrative exigency. If there were real administrative exigency, the process for selection for appointment to other 15 vacant posts would have been initiated long before. It should be borne in mind that of 15 posts sanctioned initially, only 5 were available for direct selection. Even after sanction of 5 more posts at the most 7 posts would be available for direct selection. Without waiting for more appointment by direct selection the Government could have made appointments by promotion as well. Thus, the action of the State Government in calling for the names of the candidates on the wait list does not appear to be bona fide. Without waiting for more appointment by direct selection the Government could have made appointments by promotion as well. Thus, the action of the State Government in calling for the names of the candidates on the wait list does not appear to be bona fide. Besides, the order of ad hoc appointment has been made in favour of the petitioners on 12/09/2001 just weeks before the expiry of the wait list when the State Government was already in correspondence with the Commission for appointment of the candidates on the wait list. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the appointment of the petitioners by operating the wait list has not been made for extreme administrative exigency which should justify such appointment. ( 20 ) EXCEPT the claim for right to appointment, the petitioners have not challenged the validity of the impugned order of discharge from service. As the impugned orders of discharge have been made in consonance with the terms of appointment, there cannot be a valid challenge to the said orders. The post of Programme Officer [icds] being in Class-I cadre no appointment to the said post could have been made except in consultation with the Commission. . ( 21 ) IN view of the above discussion, both the petitions fail. The petitions are dismissed. Rule nisi issued in each of the petitions is discharged. Ad-interim relief stands vacated. The parties shall bear their own costs. The registry will maintain copy of this judgment in both these petitions. .