R. B. MISRA, J. Heard Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents. Copy of the counter-affidavit has not been placed on record, however, by courtesy of the learned Counsel for the petitioner himself counter-affidavit has been seen and it has been taken into consideration and the rejoinder-affidavit is available on record. 2. It appears that the petitioners appeared for selection to the post of Conductor and according to the petitioners a select list was prepared in the year 1980 and their names were reflecting in the said select list. However, out of 414 candidates of the select list 291 candidates were appointed as Conductor and remaining persons were left. However, when list was cancelled, according to the petitioners, they should have been given appointment to the post of Conductor by virtue of being selected and included in the select list and not appointing the petitioners and inviting fresh applications to the post of Conductor in future is contrary to the principles of natural justice unless the candidates of list prepared in the year 1980 were completely absorbed. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed. According to the respondents before creation of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 1-6-1972 under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the transport services in the State of U. P. were being provided by the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways, which was at that time a department of the State Government. The U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was created with effect from 1-6-1972 under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and it succeeded in toto assets and liabilities of the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways, and for administrative reasons, the Roadways Organisation has been divided into a number of Regions throughout the State. In each region a select list/waiting list of drivers and conductors is prepared which is valid for one year or till the next select list is prepared. The candidates included in the select list are given short term appointment against short term vacancies which may arise due to sudden absence, sudden illness, suspension etc. of regular employees or during melas or marriage seasons so that smooth operation of the transport services is not affected and the travelling public at large is not inconvenienced. The candidates included in the select list are given short term appointment against short term vacancies which may arise due to sudden absence, sudden illness, suspension etc. of regular employees or during melas or marriage seasons so that smooth operation of the transport services is not affected and the travelling public at large is not inconvenienced. According to the respondents, the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation framed regulations known as U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than officers) Service Regulations, 1981 under Section 45 (2) (c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 laying down the terms and conditions of service for its employees. Regulation 20 provides the procedure for direct recruitment, which reads as under : "20 (1) For the purposes of direct recruitment, the appointing authority shall constitute a Selection Committee comprising not less than three members. (2) The Selection Committee shall scrutinise the applications and require the eligible candidates to appear in a competitive examination/trade test and/or in interview as the appointment authority may decide. Note.-The syllabus for competitive examination shall be such as may be prescribed by the appointing authority from time to time. (3) The Selection Committee shall, having regard to the need of securing due representation of the candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other categories in accordance with Regulation 12, call for interview such number of candidates as they consider proper. (4) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of selected candidates in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate of marks obtained by them in the written test/trade test and/or interview. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the person getting higher marks in the written test/trade test shall be placed higher, and where the selection is made on the basis of interview only, the person older in age shall be placed higher. The number of names in the list shall be larger (but not larger by more than 5 percent) than the number of vacancies. The Selection Committee shall forward the list to the appointing authority. (5) The list prepared under sub-regulation (4) shall remain alive for one year from the date it is finalised by the selection committee or till the date of next selection, whichever is earlier. " 4. The Selection Committee shall forward the list to the appointing authority. (5) The list prepared under sub-regulation (4) shall remain alive for one year from the date it is finalised by the selection committee or till the date of next selection, whichever is earlier. " 4. According to the respondents, in view of anticipatory requirement for the post of the conductors during one year advertisements are published in the newspapers inviting applications from the candidates, who possess the necessary qualification for being considered for the appointment to the post of conductors. Similar notices were published by various regions of the Corporation in the year 1979. The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 had issued directions to the Corporation on 30-8-1979 laying down the criteria for preparation of the select list/waiting list, and on that basis the Managing Director, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow on 2-11-1979 issued a circular. Accordingly the select list/waiting list for the year 1980 was prepared and selected candidates were imparted training after completing necessary formalities and they were informed that they will be given appointment on their turn as and when vacancy arises. According to the respondents since the select list/waiting list had not been prepared in accordance with the quota fixed by the State Government for various categories, therefore, the said list of the year 1980 in all the regions of the Corporation in the State was cancelled by the Managing Director by an order dated 15-7-1980. Even though the candidates included in the select list had no right to be appointed to the post after cancellation of the select list and the following writ petitions were filed by them challenging the order dated 15-7-1980, by which the select list/waiting list had been cancelled. However, all the writ petitions were dismissed on merits after perusing the counter-affidavit : (I) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10441-A of 1980; Hanuman Sahai v. UPSRTC. (II) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8593-A of 1980, Rajesh Kumar and others v. UPSRTC. (III) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8674-A of 1980, Shiv Saran Lal v. UPSRTC. (IV) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8589-A of 1980, Suresh Kumar v. UPSRTC. (V) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9415-A of 1980, Parash Nath v. UPSRTc (VI) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8588-A of 1980, Arun Kumar Srivastava v. UPSRTC. (VII) Civil Misc. (III) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8674-A of 1980, Shiv Saran Lal v. UPSRTC. (IV) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8589-A of 1980, Suresh Kumar v. UPSRTC. (V) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9415-A of 1980, Parash Nath v. UPSRTc (VI) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8588-A of 1980, Arun Kumar Srivastava v. UPSRTC. (VII) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10442-a of 1980, Shiv Shankar v. UPSRTC. All the above writ petitions were dismissed by this Court (Honble Mr. Satish Chandra, the Chief Justice, and Honble Mr. Justice A. N. Verma) on 16-12-1980. (VIII) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 427-A of 1981, Shiv Nand Ram v. UPSRTC, was also dismissed on 8-1- 1981 by the Honble Mr. Justice K. N. Singh and Honble Mr. Justice A. Banerji. (IX) Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3334 (A) of 1981, Krishna Kumar Pandey v. UPSRTC and 7162-A of 1981 (Santosh Kumar Dhawan v. UPSRTC, filed for same relief was also dismissed by this Court (Honble Mr. Justice M. N. Shukla and Honble Mr. Justice Jauhari) on 14-8-1981 and 30-7-1981 respectively. (X) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7735-A of 1981, Pradeep Kumar v. UPSRTC, filed for similar relief was dismissed on 30-9-1981 this Court (Honble Mr. Justice Yashoda Nandan and Honble Mr. Justice Haider ). 5. According to the respondents, thereafter the select lists were prepared the year 1981 and thereafter, in the year 1982. One of the candidates namely Rijwan Ahmad of 1981 select list filed a writ petition 28- 1-1987 before this Court (Honble Mr. Justice B. D. Agarwal and Honble Mr. Justice R. P. Singh, JJ.) with the prayer "to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to take back into service the two candidates of select list, which was prepared in the year 1981", but the writ petition was dismissed on the same day on the ground that the petitioner had only been included in the select list and after 1981 select list had been superseded by subsequent list, they had no right to claim appointment. According to the respondents, in view of agitation by the Union of the Corporation, the Head Office of the Corporation vide circular dated 17-10-1984 has asked the Regional Managers to submit the names of those conductors of 1980, 1981 and 1982 select list : (a) Those who had completed 240 days of service in the Corporation. According to the respondents, in view of agitation by the Union of the Corporation, the Head Office of the Corporation vide circular dated 17-10-1984 has asked the Regional Managers to submit the names of those conductors of 1980, 1981 and 1982 select list : (a) Those who had completed 240 days of service in the Corporation. (b) Those who had completed less than 240 days of service in the Corporation. (c) Those who had not worked even for a day but had deposited security money and had been imparted training. (d) Those who had been only imparted training. (e) Those who had neither been imparted training nor had deposited security amount. 6. According to the respondents, since there was need of conductors during peak season (for the period from 16-4-1985 to 15-7-1985) another circular was issued by the Head Office on 16-4-1985 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) directing the Regional Managers to give appointments to those conductors of 1980, 1981 and 1982 select list on daily wages : (a) Who had completed 240 days of service. (b) Who had worked for less than 240 days. (c) Who had been imparted training and had deposited security money etc. 7. It was clarified in the said circular that the said provision was being made during that peak season ending 15-7-1985. By subsequent circular a similar direction was issued for subsequent peak season or for appointment in case of requirement of the Corporation. It was also clarified that in case vacancies were not available in the Region and the candidates were willing to go to other Region, the names of such candidates be forwarded to other Region according to the requirement in that Region. However, the petitioner was not covered by any of the clauses mentioned above and, as such, there was no question of considering his name for appointment during peak season. According to the respondents, the petitioners claiming to be the candidates of 1980 select list/waiting list of conductors of Etawah Region have filed the present writ petition praying that the notices inviting applications for filling up the post of the conductors in Lucknow Region, Kanpur Region and Allahabad Region be quashed and that a direction be issued to the authorities to consider the names of the petitioners for appointment to the post of conductor. The select list/waiting list of 1980 on the basis of which the petitioners claim benefit had been cancelled by the Head Office by an order dated 15-7-1980 and that order had been upheld by this Court in a large number of the writ petition on the ground that those petitioners had only been included in the select list and that they had no right to be appointed on the post after the said select list had been cancelled. In case the Head Office of the Corporation in view of requirement of conductors during peak season of three months from 16-4-1985 to 15-7-1985 permitted the Regional Manager to give appointment to those conductors of 1980, 1981 and 1982 select list, who had completed 240 days of service or less than 240 days of service or who had been imparted training and had deposited security money etc. for being appointed during the peak season ending 18-7-1985, that too as daily wage conductors than that would not confer any right on the petitioner to claim appointment on the post of conductor in 1988 and to challenge the process of selection in Lucknow, Kanpur and Allahabad Region. The Head Office of the Corporation had decided to give regular appointment to those candidates of 1980, 1981 and 1982 select list, who had completed 240 days of service in the Corporation and whose service record was clean. All those candidates of 1980, 1981 and 1982 select list, who had completed 240 days and who having clean record of service have been given regular appointments on temporary basis as conductors. The petitioners do not come within that category and, as such, he has not been considered for appointment. The petitioner had only been included in the select list of 1980 and after cancellation of that list he has no right to claim appointment on the post of conductor. The petitioner is also not entitled to relaxation that was granted by the Head Office of the Corporation as they do not fulfil the criteria laid down therein. The petitioner was not covered by the above criteria and, as such, there was no question of giving them appointment during peak season. According to the respondents the petitioners claiming to be the candidates of 1980 select list/waiting list, which had been cancelled on 15-7-1980 cannot claim regular appointment. The petitioner was not covered by the above criteria and, as such, there was no question of giving them appointment during peak season. According to the respondents the petitioners claiming to be the candidates of 1980 select list/waiting list, which had been cancelled on 15-7-1980 cannot claim regular appointment. It has already been indicated above that in view of the agitation by the Union, the Head Office of the corporation had issued a circular that those candidates who had worked for over 240 days, those candidates who had worked for less that 240 days and those candidates who had imparted training and had deposited security money etc. but had not worked at all be considered for appointment against the short term vacancies during peak season. There is no direction to give appointment to these candidates on regular basis. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in 1997 (1) LBESR 26 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 1840 , U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Gobardhan and another, where many of the juniors shown in the select list were appointed, whereas many of the writ petitioners, who were higher in rank in the said select list, could not be given intimation as they could not reach with time for lack of information intimated to them through newspaper. In those circumstances, the Court directed to consider the claim of the seniors, who had been placed in higher rank in the said select list, however, the facts and circumstances of that case is not applicable in the present case. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in view of AIR 1986 SC 1680 , S. Govindaraju v. KSRTC and another, where the candidates shown in the select list were given appointment and many of the persons were left, such candidates were shown to have right of consideration for being appointed as and when the vacancy arose in future. In the case of S. Govindaraju (supra) the writ petitioner went to the Industrial Disputes Act, however, the facts and circumstances of the case of S. Govindaraju (supra) are different and distinguishable. 9. On behalf of the petitioners it was argued that in 1995 (2) LBESR 402 (SC) : 1995 Supp. In the case of S. Govindaraju (supra) the writ petitioner went to the Industrial Disputes Act, however, the facts and circumstances of the case of S. Govindaraju (supra) are different and distinguishable. 9. On behalf of the petitioners it was argued that in 1995 (2) LBESR 402 (SC) : 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 230, R. S. Mittal v. Union of India, where the person after being selected and put in the panel of the selected candidates was not to be denied the appointment without a proper reason however, in peculiar facts and circumstances relief was refused by the Supreme Court by observing in para 10 as below : " (10) Although a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or on its whims decline to make the appointment. When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. In the present case, there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No reason whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason, was given as to why the appointments were not offered to the candidates expeditiously and in accordance with law. The appointment should have been offered to the candidate at SI. No. 1 of the select list within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy and thereafter, to the next candidate. The Central Governments approach in this case was wholly unjustified. " 10. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that in (2000) 9 SCC 283 , Munna Roy v. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court after acknowledging that mere inclusion in select list does not confer any right to the Selectee and mandamus could not be issued but the Court could interfere when an administrative authority took a decision on erroneous reasons namely dubious method was suspected in the selection inasmuch as the candidate was a graduate, whereas, the minimum qualification for selection was matriculation and when the reason was described as arbitrary, irrational and not germane. In those circumstances the decision to cancel the panel on this score could be set aside. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court R. S. Mittal (supra) as well as in Munna Roy (supra) the action of respondent in not declaring the result of selection in question and subsequently giving appointment to the petitioners is arbitrary inaction discriminatory as the same are in derogation to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution, as contended on behalf of the petitioners. 11. However, as contended on behalf of learned Counsel for Nagar Nigam that in absence of original records, documents the selection process could not be said to be complete and no direction could be issued to finalise the selection on the basis of duplicate records in peculiar facts and circumstances when the Selection Committee before it could finalise the selection and make recommendation become obsolete therefore, for taking any further steps a fresh selection committee has to be constituted, which too, as well as Nagar Nigam are not under statutory obligation to declare the result in absence of original records/documents. Even after selection the petitioners do not acquire legal right of appointment even if vacancy is persisting for sometime. According to the respondents for the sake of argument even if the petitioners were recommended to the post of naib Moharrir, after declaration of the result of said selection in question, do not acquire any legal right merely because they were likely to be put in the penal of select list. According to the respondents, the selection in question has become obsolete and cannot be revived irrespective of the fact that subsequent selection for recruitment to the post of naib Moharrir, in Nagar Nigam had taken place or not. 12. In (2002) 4 SCC 726 , Vinodan T. and others v. University of Calicut and others, the Supreme Court has held that the appointments to the vacancies must be made in accordance with law if any, and the appointing authority cannot scrap the panel of select list during the period of its validity except for well- founded reasons. It also observed in para 14 as below : " (14) The principle that persons merely selected for a post do not thereby acquire a right to be appointed to such post is well established by judicial precedent. It also observed in para 14 as below : " (14) The principle that persons merely selected for a post do not thereby acquire a right to be appointed to such post is well established by judicial precedent. Even if vacancies exist, it is open to the authority concerned to decide how many appointments should be made. " 13. In (2002) 5 SCC 195 , S. Renuka and others v. State of U. P. and another, the Supreme Court while acknowledging the decision made in above two cases R. S. Mittal (supra) and Munna Roy (supra) has however held that no right accrues to a person merely because a person is selected and his or her name is put on a panel and the candidates have no right to claim the appointment. 14. In (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1697, State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. D. Dastagiri and others, the Supreme Court has taken the similar view and has held that no vested right accrue to the candidates to be appointed even if selection process was completed and the Supreme Court has observed in para 4 as below : " (4) There is serious dispute as to the completion of selection process. According to the appellants, the selection process was not complete. No record has been placed before us to show that the selection process was complete, but, it is not disputed that the select list was not published. In paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit, referred above, the respondents themselves had admitted that the selection process was cancelled at the last stage. In the absence of publication of select list, we are inclined to think that the selection process was not complete. Be that as it may, even if the selection process was complete and assuming that only select list was remained to be published, that does not advance the case of the respondents for the simple reason that even the candidates who are selected and whose names find place in the select list, do not get vested right to claim appointment based on the select list. It was open to the State Government to take a policy decision either to have prohibition or not to have prohibition in the State. Certainly, the Government had right to take a policy decision. It was open to the State Government to take a policy decision either to have prohibition or not to have prohibition in the State. Certainly, the Government had right to take a policy decision. If pursuant to a policy decision taken to impose prohibition in the State there was no requirement for the recruitment of Constables in the Excise Department, nobody can insist that they must appoint candidates as Excise Constables. It is not the case of the respondents that there was any mala fide on the part of the appellants in refusing the appointment to the respondents after the selection process was complete. The only claim was that the action of the appellants, in the appointing the respondents as Excise Constables, was arbitrary. In the light of the facts that we have stated above, when it was open to the Government to take a policy decision, we fail to understand as to how the respondents can dub the action of the respondents as arbitrary, particularly, when they did not have any right as such to claim appointments. In the absence of selection and publication of select list, mere concession or submission made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant-State cannot improve the case of the respondents. Similarly, such submission cannot confer right on the respondents, which they otherwise did not have. " 15. A person has a right only to be considered being eligible as per the Rules for employment. He can raise the grievance provided a person having lesser merit in the same category is offered appointment. 16. Mere inclusion of the name of a candidate in the select list does not confer any right of appointment (vide Shanker Sen Das v. Union of India & Ors. , AIR 1991 SC 1612 ; Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1993) 2 SCC 573 ; Union of India & Ors v. S. S. Uppal, 1996 (1) LBESR 805 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 2340 ; Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India & Ors. 1997 (1) LBESR 113 (SC) : 1996 (10) SCC 742 ; Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar, 1997 (1) LBESR 400 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 2280; Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Shankar Paul & Ors. , 1997 (2) LBESR 707 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 3091 and Vice Chancellor University of Allahabad v. Dr. 1997 (1) LBESR 113 (SC) : 1996 (10) SCC 742 ; Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar, 1997 (1) LBESR 400 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 2280; Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Shankar Paul & Ors. , 1997 (2) LBESR 707 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 3091 and Vice Chancellor University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra & Ors. , 1997 (10) SCC 264 ). 17. As there is no enforceable right to appointment, mandamus cannot be issued to the respondents to appoint petitioner (vide Punjab S. E. B. v. Seema, 1999 SCC (S/s) 629 ). 18. The Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Khatri & Ors. , 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 84, has held that selected candidates have right to appointment only against "vacancies notified" and that too during the life of the select list as the panel of selected candidates cannot be valid for indefinite period. Moreover, empanelled candidates "in any event cannot have a right against future vacancies". In State of Bihar v. Secretariat, Assistant S. E. Union, 1986 & Ors. , AIR 1994 SC 736 , the Supreme Court has held that "a person who is selected does not, on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. " Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment, and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to the appointed unless relevant service rules provides to the contrary. 19. In Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) LBESR 373 (SC) : 1997 (8) SCC 488 , the Supreme Court observed as under : ". . . . If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as infinite stock for power, there is danger that the State may resort to the device of not holding the examination for years together and pick-up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The Constitutional discipline requires that improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetuating the waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service. . . Exercise of such power (to requisition the post) has to be tested on the touch-stone of reasonableness. . . . . . " 20. . . Exercise of such power (to requisition the post) has to be tested on the touch-stone of reasonableness. . . . . . " 20. It is settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the Court after expiry of the Select List. (Vide J. Ashok Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. , JT 1996 (3) SCC 320 ; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mohd. Kalimuddin, 1996 (2) LBESR 101 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 1145 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Harish Chandra, 1996 (2) LBESR 85 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 2173 and State of U. P. & Ors. v. Ram Swarup Saroj, 2000 (1) LBESR 1051 (SC) : 2000 (3) SCC 699 ). It has been held therein that if the selection process is over, select list had expired and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the Court at a belated stage. However, in Purshottam v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Anr. , 1999 (6) SCC 49 , the Supreme Court has held as under : "the right of the appellant to be appointed against the post to which he has been selected, cannot be taken away on the pretext that the said panel, in the meanwhile, expired and the posts had already been filled up by somebody, else. Usurpation of post by somebody else is not on account of any fault on the part of the appellant but on the erroneous decision of the employer himself. In that view of the matter, appellants right to be appointed on the post has been illegally taken away by the employer". The Supreme Court held that in such a situation the party should be given the relief. The aforesaid judgment had been delivered by a Bench consisting of two Honble Judges of the Supreme Court and that too without taking note of the judgments referred to hereinabove. 21. The Supreme Court held that in such a situation the party should be given the relief. The aforesaid judgment had been delivered by a Bench consisting of two Honble Judges of the Supreme Court and that too without taking note of the judgments referred to hereinabove. 21. A Bench of Three Honble Judges of the Supreme Court, in Sushma Suri v. Government of National Capital of Delhi, 1999 (1) SCC 330 , dealing with a case wherein the Court had been approached at the stage when the process of selection had started but by the time the matter was decided, the selection process stood concluded and the appointments had been made, observed as under : "however, we are not in a position to give any relief to the appellant before us now because when she commenced the litigation, the recruitment process was still going on and it had gone too far ahead. In fact, the same has been completed and selected candidates had already been appointed and they had reported for duty in different places and they are not impleaded as parties in these proceedings, it would not be proper to upset such appointment. " 22. There can be no dispute that wherever there is a conflict in two judgments of the Court, the judgment of the larger Bench would prevail. (Vide Rameshwar Shaw v. Distt. Magistrate Burdwan & Anr. , AIR 1964 SC 335; State of U. P. & Ors. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547 ; N Meera Rani v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Anr. , AIR 1989 SC 2027 ; N. S. Giri v. Corporation of City of Manglore & Ors. , 1999 (4) SCC 697 ; Coir Board Ernakulam & Anr. v. Indira Devi P. S. & Ors. ,1998 (1) LBESR 868 (SC) : 2000 (1) SCC 224 ; Sub-Inspector Roop Lal & Anr. v. Lt. Governor Delhi & Ors. , 2000 (1) SCC 644 ; Lily Thomas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , 2000 (6) SCC 224 and S. H. Rangappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors. , 2002 (1) SCC 538 ). Thus, in view of the above we are of the considered opinion that in view of the larger Bench judgments no appointment can be made after expiry of the Select List. 23. v. Union of India & Ors. , 2000 (6) SCC 224 and S. H. Rangappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors. , 2002 (1) SCC 538 ). Thus, in view of the above we are of the considered opinion that in view of the larger Bench judgments no appointment can be made after expiry of the Select List. 23. The Court has no competence to issue a direction contrary to law, (vide Union of India & Anr. v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. , 1996 (4) SCC 453 ; State of U. P. & Ors. v. Harish Chandra & Ors. , 1996 (2) LBESR 85 (SC) : 1996 (9) SCC 309 and Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad & Ors. v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra & Ors. , 1997 (10) SCC 264 ). 24. In State of Punjab & others v. Renuka Singla & others, 1994 (1) SCC 175 , dealing with a similar situation, the Supreme Court has observed as under: "we fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations. " 25. Similarly, in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashrafulla Khan & others, JT 2002 (2) SC 113, the Supreme Court has held as under : "the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforced rule of law and not pass order or direction which is contrary to what has been injected by law. " In view of the above analysis the person being even a member of the select list has no right of appointment and as such the petitioner has no right for the appointment. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue any direction or mandamus for giving appointment to the petitioner from the said select list, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .