ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The question which arises for determination in these appeals is whether the High Court could have directed the appellant to fill up the vacancies from the waiting list prepared in respect of the appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Irrigation, Minor Irrigation and the Public Works Department and Rural Engineering. 3. Selection by examination in 1996 was made for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Irrigation, Mining Irrigation and the Public Works Department and Rural Engineering. The respondents appeared and were successful but were not selected. Their names were on the waiting list prepared by the State Public Service Commission. The results of the 1996 examination were published on 15-5-1998. The allotments of the posts between four different departments for which the combined examination was held were made on 2-6-1998. The case of the respondents is that all the appointments which were made from the select list against the several posts were not made until the selectees approached the High Court and direction was given to the appellant herein to issue the appointment letters. Out of the appointees 188 did not join the posts. Claiming that by reason of the 188 vacancies thereby created they should be filled by the persons whose names were in the waiting list, the respondents approached the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment considered the notification which had been issued on 15-11-1999 to the effect that there should be no waiting list and held that the notification did not have retrospective effect and therefore, the appellants before us were directed to fill up 188 vacancies from out of the waiting list within a fixed period. 4. Before us learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that in terms of the notification issued on 31-1-1994, the waiting list expired in August 1999 and, therefore, the respondents had no right whatsoever to claim appointment on the basis of such waiting list. It is also submitted that the wait-listed candidates in any event have no vested right to be appointed. The final submission was that in terms of the notification dated 15-11-1999, the waiting list had in fact been abolished and a decision had been taken by the Government that in all the unfilled vacancies arising in future, they shall be filled by fresh selection. 5. The final submission was that in terms of the notification dated 15-11-1999, the waiting list had in fact been abolished and a decision had been taken by the Government that in all the unfilled vacancies arising in future, they shall be filled by fresh selection. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have said that the 1994 notification in fact recognised the right of wait-listed candidates to be appointed in the event vacancies were created by reason of non-joining of the post by the selected candidates. The Government had, according to the respondents, arbitrarily defeated this right of the respondents by not issuing letters of appointment at all to the selected candidates till December 2000. It is submitted that the Government should not be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong and thereby deprive the respondents of the right by which they had to be appointed in terms of the 1994 notification. 6. The second submission of the respondents was that the last appointment having been made pursuant to the order of the High Court in October 2001, the waiting list should be deemed to be valid on the date of the impugned order of the High Court and, therefore, the High Court was justified in directing the appointment of the respondents. The final submission of the respondents is that there were only five writ petitioners who were in the waiting list and who were denied their appointment by reason of the delay, negligence and laches on the part of the Government, therefore, this Court should not in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 136 interfere with the order of the High Court. 7. The basic facts are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the construction of the 1994 notification and the 1999 notification. As far as the 1994 notification is concerned, it provided, inter alia: "(2) The department concerned, within three-and-a-half months of obtaining/receiving the sanction of posts should issue the appointment letter after deciding so that the candidates should be given at least one months time to join the post which can be extended. Thereafter, the candidature of the appointed should be cancelled and the copy of such cancellation of appointment order should be sent to the Commission for obtaining the next suitable candidate existing on the waiting list in place of candidate/candidates so mentioned accordingly. Thereafter, the candidature of the appointed should be cancelled and the copy of such cancellation of appointment order should be sent to the Commission for obtaining the next suitable candidate existing on the waiting list in place of candidate/candidates so mentioned accordingly. A copy of this order will also be sent to Workman Section IV. (4) The waiting list will not be published and it is made available with the Commission and in case of necessity the names are recommended by the Commission. (5) This waiting list will be considered to be valid for only one year, either it may relate to any such competitive examination which is be in conducted every year or for any specific selection. In certain cases it been found that on demanding names from the Commission for their vacant posts within the prescribed time from the waiting list maintained by the Commission the Commission fails to provide such names to fill u the vacancies, in such cases if the situation is found to be correct and the Commission had not provided the names of the successful candidates waiting list, under such situations the existing waiting list will be considered as valid for more than one year. (6) If the said waiting list is not utilised as the names of selected candidates are not demanded by the departments concerned from the Commission out of the waiting list in those cases the vacancies which were not filled up are retained for the next year to be filled accordingly." 8. Reading clause (2) of the notification, it is clear that the precondition for requisition being sent for obtaining the next suitable candidate from the waiting list was a failure of the candidate appointed to join the post for which the appointment letter was issued. In this case, according to the respondents, no appointment letter was at all issued even to the selected candidates till 2000. 9. The phrase "existing on the waiting list" in the second paragraph must be read as meaning a valid waiting list. In terms of paragraph (5) of the aforesaid notification, the waiting list would only be valid for one year, that one year being calculated from the date of publication of the results under paragraph (4). 9. The phrase "existing on the waiting list" in the second paragraph must be read as meaning a valid waiting list. In terms of paragraph (5) of the aforesaid notification, the waiting list would only be valid for one year, that one year being calculated from the date of publication of the results under paragraph (4). Even if one assumes that the validity of the period is to be calculated from the date of the appointment letters being issued on d 18-8-1998, even then the life of the waiting list expired in August 1999. Therefore, by the time the appointment letters were issued and the vacancies arising out of non-joining by the selected candidates took place, there was in fact no valid waiting list. 10. The submission that a waiting list could be valid for a period extending one year on the basis of the language used in paragraph (5) is unacceptable. In the factual situation under paragraph (5), the State Government should have sent a requisition to the Public Service Commission for the names of the wait-listed candidates within the prescribed time, namely, during the validity of the waiting list. If the Commission failed to provide names within the time prescribed only then the existing waiting list would be considered as valid for more than one year. These factual preconditions have not been fulfilled in the present case. It is not the case of the respondents that the State Government had in fact sent a requisition to the Public Service Commission for recommendation of any names and that it was on account of the failure of the Commission that the time had to be extended under paragraph (5). 11. The general principle of law as has been established and followed repeatedly by this Court is that even those candidates whose names are included in the merit list do not have a vested right to be appointed. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of Indial.) The decision relied upon by the High Court and which has been cited before us, namely, Jai Narain Ram v. State of U.P2 had been rendered in connection with the case of Scheduled Caste candidates. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of Indial.) The decision relied upon by the High Court and which has been cited before us, namely, Jai Narain Ram v. State of U.P2 had been rendered in connection with the case of Scheduled Caste candidates. It was held in that case that Scheduled Caste candidates who were in the waiting list could be directed to be appointed against the reserved category when vacancies were created in such reserved category by reason of the successful candidates not joining the post. The reasoning is based upon Article 14 read with Articles 16(1) and (4) of the Constitution. The Court held in paragraph 7 of the Report that given these constitutional rights "the State failed to perform its constitutional duty to requisition the Public Service Commission to recommend the next qualified persons to the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes". (SCC p. 334) 12. This decision has no application to the facts of this case. A special right was recognised as far as Scheduled Caste candidates were concerned. The correctness of that judgment is not in question before us but we would not seek to extend the principle as enunciated to persons who are not within the ambit of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. 13. The respondents next contention is that the waiting list should have, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, been deemed to be valid at least as on the date of the first appointment made pursuant to the order of the High Court. That would mean that the waiting list was existing when the notification dated 15-11-1999 was issued. If that is so, then one would have to construe the provisions of the notification to see whether despite the said notification the waiting list could still survive. The notification dated 15-11-1999 provides for scrapping of the provision which required the next name existing in the waiting list to be appointed on the failure of the selected candidates to join the posts to which they were appointed. This has been referred to as "reshuffling procedure" in the notification. The notification specifically provides that with effect from the date of the notification "no such reshuffling procedure will be done". The notification also provided that all prevalent orders covering these appointments should be abolished by the 1999 notification. This has been referred to as "reshuffling procedure" in the notification. The notification specifically provides that with effect from the date of the notification "no such reshuffling procedure will be done". The notification also provided that all prevalent orders covering these appointments should be abolished by the 1999 notification. Paragraph (5) of the notification reads: "Under situation when the selected candidate doesnt join his post within the prescribed time period in that case the post should be declared vacant and the same should be kept reserved for the next year." 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that even this paragraph has not been followed by the appellants in that, they did not declare the unfilled vacancies for the next following year but continued to appoint candidates from the select list prepared on the basis of the 1996 selection examination. The appropriateness of the State Government actions on the basis of the 1996 select list in alleged violation of paragraph (5) of the 1999 notification is not before us. In any event assuming that the respondents are correct, that would not in any way strengthen the respondents case for being appointed against vacancies on the basis of the waiting list. 15. The last submission of the respondents that the High Court had granted relief only to five of the wait-listed candidates who had approach the High Court and who are the respondents before us and therefore, this Court should not on grounds of equity, disturb the decision of the High Court, is unacceptable. The decision is to be taken on a question of principle. A decision in favour of the respondents may be treated as a precedent for all other candidates and would enunciate the law incorrectly for the future. We think that the High Court has erred in law in directing the appellants to appoint the respondents. The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the appeals are allowed without any order as to costs. Civil Appeal No. ... of 2003 @ SLP (C) No. 16730 of 2002 16.Leave granted. 17. This appeal has been filed from an interim order in a writ petition filed by the respondents. The respondents were successful candidates in the examination taken by them in 1996 for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Civil Appeal No. ... of 2003 @ SLP (C) No. 16730 of 2002 16.Leave granted. 17. This appeal has been filed from an interim order in a writ petition filed by the respondents. The respondents were successful candidates in the examination taken by them in 1996 for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Because of their position in the merit list, according to their case before the High Court, they were given the hill cadre as a post of the plain cadre. In a writ petition filed by Bibhakar Dwivedi and others which had been allowed, the High Court had held that the wait-listed appointees could be appointed to the vacancies created by those candidates who were successful in the 1996 examination and who had not joined the posts. In view of that, this writ petition was filed by the respondents seeking to exercise their option to go back to the State of V.P. Clearly, if the judgment in Bibhakar Dwivedi3 stood then the persons who would be appointed would be lower down in the merit list than the respondents before us. It was in those circumstances that the High Court in the writ petition filed by the respondents directed as follows: "This Court in Bibhakar Dwivedi v. State of U.P3 has directed that the respondents were to fill up the remaining vacancies from among those who were lower down in the selection list. We direct that the petitioners in this petition should also be considered in the plain cadre (State of V.P.) in the reshufting process." 18. By the judgment delivered by this Court today, we have set aside the decision of the High Court in Bibhakar Dwivedi3 and held that the wait-listed candidates were not entitled to be appointed against the vacancies. In the circumstances, the question of the appellants being affected by juniors in the merit list being given a preferred position does not arise. Accordingly, we set aside the interim order. However, this will not have any impact on the merits of the writ petition which is still pending before the High Court. 19. The appeals are allowed accordingly without any order as to costs.