JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. The Appellant was appointed on 28.8.85 as Knitting Instructor with a monthly fixed lumpsum payment of Rs. 590/- per month. This appointment, of course was temporary as against the temporary vacancy caused on account of the termination of one Shrimati B. Narola Aier, Knitting Instructor in the Labour Welfare Centre, Nagaland Forest Product Tijit. Later on the Appellant with the other temporary employees were asked to appear before the Selection Board for interview on 4.6.86. The Selection Board interviewed the candidates who appeared before it. The Selection Board was to consider the regular appointment in the three posts of Knitting Instructor alongwith other posts in which regular appointment was to be made. The Selection Board on 4.6.86 after going into the selection process and on examination/consideration of the certificates/testimonials/experience etc. found the Appellant eligible and holding the merit for appointment in the post of Knitting Instructor. The Selection Board published the selection list for the posts in order of merit in which Smti. T. Shilumongla was placed at S.I. No. 1, Smti. Pongjungmonla was placed at S.I. No. 3 and the Appellant was placed at S.I. No. 9 of the select list against the posts of Knitting Instructor. There were three vacant posts of Knitting Instructors and three candidates were selected by Selection Board. The Selection Board recommended their names for regular appointment against those posts. The persons whose names appeared at S.I. No. 1 and 3 were given appointment. However, the Appellant was not given appointment and she continued as temporary appointee in the department although she was given regular scale of pay from 31.10.95 on her several representations. But she was all along treated as temporary employee. When the Appellant made complaint for not affording her appointment as regular Knitting Instructor the Joint Labour Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima vide letter dated 2.8.2001 has informed the Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Labour and Employment Department, Kohima that ".... altogether 9(nine) candidates have appeared interview on 4.6.86 for the post of 3(three) Knitting Instructors, 3(three) Tailoring Instructors and 3(three) Machine Embroidery Instructors as per calling letter issued No. ORD/54/86/203 dated 7.6.86 for Labour Welfare Centres at Nagaland Sugar Mills, Dimapur, Nagaland Pulp and Paper Mills, Tuli and Nagaland Forest Product, Tijit. Amongst the candidates appeared interview, Smti. Bendangwatila was also selected for the post of Knitting Instructor. Amongst the candidates appeared interview, Smti. Bendangwatila was also selected for the post of Knitting Instructor. But in the meantime, the then Hon'ble Minister of Labour desired that one Smt. Y. Petei Konyai who stated to have passed Training in Knitting be appointed as Knitting Instructor at Tijit though she did not appeared in the selection test. And as a result Smti. Bendangwatila though selected as Knitting Instructor by the selection committee had to be removed and kept in the department on lumpsum basis. Later on by order under Memo No. LBR-10/75 (Pt-II) issued by the Joint Labour Commissioner dated 11.6.2001 the Appellants' service has been terminated with retrospective dated 1.6.2001 treating her to be temporary employee without assigning any reason and without conducting any enquiry. Appellant challenged the order of termination before this Court and claimed to be regularised in the post consequent to selection result. The learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated 23.8.2002 passed in W.P. (C) No. 175(K)/2002 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that since the Petitioner has not approached this Court immediately after she has been denied regular appointment the petition cannot be entertained. Being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been filed. 2. The Petitioner has claimed relief to set aside the order of termination issued by the Respondents treating here as a temporary employee without holding any enquiry or assigning any reason and claimed regularisation on the post on the basis of selection held by the Department. In the State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Ramakrishna Rao and Ors. (1972) 4 SCC 830 , the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has held that an applicant seeking appointment does not acquire any right by merely applying for the post either under the rule or otherwise on being selected for the post. In the State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Ors. (1974) 3 SCC 220 , the Apex Court has held that mere inclusion of the name of an applicant in the select list does not give him any right to be appointed to the post. Mere existence of vacancies does not give legal right to a candidate for appointment. It is open to the Government to decide as to in how many posts appointment shall be made. Mere existence of vacancies does not give legal right to a candidate for appointment. It is open to the Government to decide as to in how many posts appointment shall be made. Mere fact that the candidate's name appear in the list, will not be entitled to Mandamus that he be appointed. In Shankarsan-Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 , it has been held by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court that on selections qualified candidates do not acquire any vested right to the post unless relevant recruitment rules so indicate. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, the State has to act fairly. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafidely for valid and cogent reason. Mere selection does not create any right to appointment. The ratio has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad and Ors. v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and Ors. reported in (1997) 10 SCC 264 . 3. It is settled law that selection of a candidate does not confer any vested right in his favour much less indefeasible right. The appropriate appointing authority is not obliged to fill up all the vacancies or to appoint any candidate from select list in any resultant vacancy. But at the same time, the Government or the Authority's decision not to fill the vacancies has to be taken bonafidely for a valid and cogent reason. The Government cannot decide as its whims to appoint only some of the selected candidates and deny appointment to Ors. unless there are valid reasons before the Government or the appointing authority for doing so. Strong and cogent reasons are required to show as to why only some of the selected candidates are appointed. In a case where the selection process is completed, unless compelling reasons are given, the appointments on pick and choose basis from the select list would be treated as hostile discrimination by the Government. 4. In the present case there was admittedly three vacancies available on the posts of Knitting Instructors when the selection process commenced. In a case where the selection process is completed, unless compelling reasons are given, the appointments on pick and choose basis from the select list would be treated as hostile discrimination by the Government. 4. In the present case there was admittedly three vacancies available on the posts of Knitting Instructors when the selection process commenced. The Appellant/Petitioner was selected on the basis of merit for appointment in the post, she being amongst three candidates selected, but she has been denied appointment because some other person, who was neither a candidate in the selection process nor selected by Selection Board, was to be accommodated. 5. It is revealed from the record that the Appellant/Petitioner was denied appointment only on the ground that the Minister wanted to accommodate his candidate in the post of Knitting Instructor inspite of the fact that the person has never appeared before the Selection Board. The appointment has been issued to one Smt. Y. Petei Konyai only on the basis of the recommendation made by the Minister though she did not appear in the interview nor it is known to us whether she was at all qualified to be appointed to the post. The Appellant/Petitioner who is working in the department from the year 1985 has not been given appointment although she was selected by the Selection Board and that is only on the basis of the recommendation of the Minister. The Minister has no authority to direct for appointment to be made in the department over-reaching the Selection Board's recommendation. The Minister has no authority to take away the right which has been created in favour of the Appellant by virtue of her being selected for regular appointment to the post. The entire procedure followed by the State in giving appointment to a candidate who has not been selected Stink with arbitrariness and illegality. As appointment of Smt. Y. Petei Konyai has not been directly challenged before this Court we cannot pass any order with regard thereto but at the same time we cannot overlook the fact that the Appellant/Petitioner has been denied appointment in a most surreptitious manner without there being any authority of law. This Court cannot permit the arbitrary act which writ large on the face of it on the part of the Govt. officials to stand. This Court cannot permit the arbitrary act which writ large on the face of it on the part of the Govt. officials to stand. The Appellant/Petitioner could not have been denied appointment only on the ground that the Minister does not want it so that he can adjust his favourite in the vacancy. Under the facts and circumstances we do not find any reason to refuse relief to the Appellant/Petitioner merely on the ground that she did not approach this Court immediately after appointments were given to other persons who have been selected for the posts of Knitting Instructor or when select list was made operative in exclusion of Appellant/Petitioner. 6. The dismissal of the Appellant's writ petition on the ground of latches, does not justify the power to be exercised by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the facts and circumstances which has been brought on record. For the aforesaid reasons we set aside the order dated 23.8.2002 of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. (C) No. 175(K)/2002. We are aware of the fact that normally Courts are not expected to direct appointments to the posts but to direct consideration of the case for appointment but then there are always exception to the general rule and in each and every case the Court is not bound to follows this rule, which is more of prudence than of law. In a given circumstance, when the Courts conscience is shaken by blatant and naked act of executive which impugn upon the basic principles of "Rule of Law" the Court shall act and shall not remain silent spectator. In the facts and circumstances of the present case we have to direct the State Respondents to give regular appointment to the Appellant Petitioner from the date on which Smti. T. Shilumongia and Smti. Pongjungimonla were given regular appointment to the post of Knitting Instructor. The Appellant shall be entitled for the differences of regular salary which she is entitled to and the salary which has been paid to her from time to time, from the date of her regular appointment. The Appellant shall also be entitled for all the service benefits, which under the relevant service rules the Knitting Instructor is entitled to. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed