JUDGMENT : Sunil Ambwani, J. Heard Sri. Shashi Nanda, senior advocate, assisted by Sri. Pankaj Misra for Petitioner and Sri. K.R. Sirohi for Respondent. 2. The Petitioners have sought a direction to quash the advertisement dated 6.2.2004 issued by Registrar General, High Court at Allahabad inviting application from the Assistants of the High Court for selection through competitive examination for appointment of Bench Secretary Grade II. The Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the Registrar General to make appointment of 21 Bench Secretaries Grade II, for which applications have been invited vide aforesaid advertisement, out of approved select list dated 19.1.2003. 3. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition, nominated to this Bench, is being finally decided. 4. The method of selection to the post of Bench Secretary is provided in Rule 11 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976. Whenever it is required to make selection to fill up any vacancy/vacancies for the post of Bench Secretary Grade II, Rule 11(1) requires the appointing authority to invite applications from the eligible assistants as mentioned in Clause (e) of Rule 8 for admission to competitive examination. The source of recruitment in Rule 8(c) is by selection through competitive examination conducted by the appointing authority, open to the assistants having not less than 10 years continuous service in class III post. These assistants include routine grade clerks, Lower Division Assistants, Upper Division Assistants and Personal Assistants. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 provides that the procedure and syllabus relating to the competitive examination shall be such as may be prescribed by the appointing authority from time to time. Sub-rule (3) provides that the rest of the procedure of selection and the period during which the select list shall hold good shall be the same as laid down in Rule 10. 5. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1976 provides for method of selection for the posts of routine grade clerks, which has been made applicable to Bench Secretary Grade II, by Rule 11(3). 5. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1976 provides for method of selection for the posts of routine grade clerks, which has been made applicable to Bench Secretary Grade II, by Rule 11(3). Under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, the appointing authority is required to ascertain the probable number of vacancies likely to occur in the post during the course of the year of recruitment, and determine the number of vacancies, if any, to be reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and others under Rule 23. Sub-rule (g) of Rule 10 provides for the total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and interview will determine their position and the merit list shall be prepared accordingly. The select list shall hold good for three years or till the next selection is held whichever is earlier. The year of recruitment is defined under Rule 2(m), which means, the period of twelve months commencing from the 1st day of July of a calendar year. Rule 30 provides that on the occurrence of substantive vacancy, the appointing authority shall make appointment to the various categories of posts in the establishment from the respective list of persons duly selected under the rules. Where a select list has been prepared appointments shall be made in the same order in which the names appear in the list. 6. The selection process for the last recruitment was initiated vide Office Memorandum dated March 5, 2002, inviting applications for selection to the post of Bench Secretary Grade II. The number of vacancies were not given either in the Office Memorandum or in the notice inviting applications. In all 150 (111 from Allahabad and 39 from Lucknow Bench) applications were received, out of which 138 candidates were found eligible and only 92 appeared in the written examination. Out of these, 89 candidates qualified for interview and a select list of 67 candidates was prepared and published by the Registrar General on 21.1.2003. Out of these, 39 were appointed. 7. The notice under challenge, was issued on 6.2.2004, inviting applications for Assistants in the High Court having not less than ten years service in class III post as on 1.11.2004, for selection through competitive examination for appointment as Bench Secretary Grade II. Para 3 of the notice gave the number of vacancies to be 21 which may decrease or increase. The notice under challenge, was issued on 6.2.2004, inviting applications for Assistants in the High Court having not less than ten years service in class III post as on 1.11.2004, for selection through competitive examination for appointment as Bench Secretary Grade II. Para 3 of the notice gave the number of vacancies to be 21 which may decrease or increase. A Committee has been constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 21.1.2004 for selections. Sri. K.R. Sirohi appearing for the Court, informs that 60 applications have been received out of which 20 new and eligible assistants have applied. 8. In the counter-affidavit of Sri Pramod Kumar Goel, Joint Registrar (Inspection), High Court it has stated in para 11 that the selection committee resolved that there are 21 vacancies of Bench Secretary Grade II which includes 18 vacancies for the new Judges, 2 vacancies already in existence and one anticipated to fall vacant due to retirement before June, 2004. In para 13, it is stated that these 18 posts were sanctioned by the Government order dated 8.11.2001, with a rider that appointment against these posts shall be made in such a way that the staff is made available to the Hon'ble Judges on their elevation, and therefore, the same were not included in the selection of 2002. Since the said posts were not notified for the recruitment in the year 2002, a fresh selection process has been initiated for these 18 posts along with three additional vacancies in the recruitment year 2003-04. 9. In the same paragraph it is stated by Sri Pramod Kumar Goel, Joint Registrar (Inspection), High Court that earlier selections were held pursuant to notice dated 5.3.2002, but since some other assistants working in the establishment of the Court on Class III posts were likely to have completed ten years of continuous service, and may have acquired eligibility to undertake competitive examination, in all fairness a fresh selection process was started, more so, when the post included in the present advertisement, were not included in the advertisement dated 5.3.2002. Sri. K. R. Sirohi informs the Court that about 30 Upper Division Assistants, 7 Lower Division Assistants and 1 Routine Grade Clerk have acquired eligibility, after the previous selection vide notice dated 5.3.2002. 10. Learned Counsel for Petitioner, Sri. Sri. K. R. Sirohi informs the Court that about 30 Upper Division Assistants, 7 Lower Division Assistants and 1 Routine Grade Clerk have acquired eligibility, after the previous selection vide notice dated 5.3.2002. 10. Learned Counsel for Petitioner, Sri. Shashi Nandan submits that Rule 10(4) of the Rules of 1976 provides that select list shall hold good for three years or till next selection is held, whichever is earlier. The selection in pursuance of notification dated 5.3.2002 was held for indeterminate number of vacancies. The advertisement did not specify the number of vacancies which has now been provided in para 4 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Pramod Kumar Goel, Joint Registrar (Inspection) High Court, Allahabad. He submits that the 18 posts were sanctioned by the State Government by Government order dated 8.11.2001 much before the advertisement was issued on 5.3.2002 inviting applications for selection. These 18 vacancies already existing were illegally and arbitrarily excluded from the previous selections. There has been no change whatsoever either in the method of selection, or syllabus, and thus the commencement of the next selection, cutting short the validity of the previous select list is a wholly arbitrary and irrational exercise of power by the High Court. The Petitioners have competed and have passed the examination. They are available for appointment to the posts which were sanctioned by the State Government prior to their selections. Out of this list 46 were called for training and 39 were appointed. He submits that all the 21 vacancies ought to have been filled up from the select list available with the Court. The fresh advertisement, according to him, is not only arbitrary, irrational but also violates Petitioner's right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has relied upon the judgment in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T.S. Sastry, (2004) 1 SCC 136 and Dr. Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. 1987 (2) AWC 1471 : 1987 UPLBEC 1006, in support of his submission that where the vacancies were not determined prior to the selection, all the vacancies arising during the currency of the select list should be filled up from the selected candidates empanneled the select list. 11. Sri. K.R. Sirohi, on the other hand, submits that the selections were held in the year 2002 for only 30 vacancies. 11. Sri. K.R. Sirohi, on the other hand, submits that the selections were held in the year 2002 for only 30 vacancies. The 18 posts sanctioned by the State Government on 8.11.2001 were to be filled up subject to the availability of Hon. Judges on their elevation. These vacancies were not included in the previous selections and that the Court decided to fill these vacancies and two more which came into existence and one anticipated vacancy due to retirement before June, 2004, by making fresh selection, including all those who were not eligible on 5.3.2002. Sri. Sirohi submits that under Rule 10(4), the select list holds good for three years or till the next selection is held whichever is earlier with the decision to hold fresh selection, the select list dated 21.1.2003 does not hold good any longer. He submits that after the previous selections, more Judges have been appointed giving rise to shortage of staff, on account of which officials have been taken from administrative/weeding work and have been posted as Bench Secretary on temporary measure till further orders. He submits that the decision to fill up 20 vacancies and one anticipated vacancy upto June, 2004, ceased the select list dated 21.1.2003. In the meantime a number of assistants completed 10 years of service and became eligible. In order to give wider base to the selection and to include all those who had become eligible after the previous advertisement and to give equal treatment to them, the decision to hold fresh selection cannot be treated to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 12. The Rule 10 of 1976 provides for ascertaining probable number of vacancies likely to occur in the year of recruitment, which u/s 2(m) is defined as period of 12 months continuous service from 1st day of July of the calendar year. The selection is provided under Rule 11, by a competitive examination. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 gives a life of three years to the list which can be cut short by commencement of the next selections. The short question to be decided in this writ petition is, whether the Respondent acted arbitrarily and in violation of Petitioners' right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in deciding to hold next selection during the currency of the select list dated 21.1.2003. 13. The short question to be decided in this writ petition is, whether the Respondent acted arbitrarily and in violation of Petitioners' right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in deciding to hold next selection during the currency of the select list dated 21.1.2003. 13. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India 1991 (3) ACC 47, the Supreme Court held that the inclusion of a name of candidate in the panel indicating their selection does not give such person any indefeasible right for appointment even against the existing vacancies, and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. Para 7 of the judgment is quoted as below: 7. 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 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 test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in The State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others, (1974) 3 SCC 220 ; Miss Neelima Shangla, Ph. D. Candidate Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 268 and Jatinder Kumar and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 122 . 14. The Constitution Bench decision in Shankarsan Dash was followed by Supreme Court in All India SC and ST Employees Assn. and Another etc. Vs. A. Arthur Jeen and Others etc., (2001) 6 SCC 380 . In Dr. State of Punjab and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 122 . 14. The Constitution Bench decision in Shankarsan Dash was followed by Supreme Court in All India SC and ST Employees Assn. and Another etc. Vs. A. Arthur Jeen and Others etc., (2001) 6 SCC 380 . In Dr. Arvind Kumar (supra), this Court held that the list may be examination-wise or selection-wise or it may be list for one year or till the next selection is made or till the list is cancelled. Whereas the list is examination or selectionwise the candidates in the waiting list can claim to be appointed if the selected candidates do not join and vacancy arises. But the purpose of periodical list is to keep it alive for certain period and if a vacancy arises in that period then it should be offered to the candidates from the list. A candidate has a right to claim that he should be appointed against vacancy which occurs during that period, otherwise there can be no purpose in keeping the list operative for a certain period. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court found that promotion policy stipulating ranking list to include 20% beyond the declared vacancies. The contingent list was issued for the purpose of giving promotion from a vacant post as and when required prior to the formation of the next Promotion Committee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court found that the vacancies at Kurnool and Srikakulam were actually filled up by the transfer of the existing cadre. The Supreme Court approved the finding of the High Court that these two branches were opened by transferring of the cadre was an act of mala fide on the part of the Appellant. The two branches were opened during the currency from the list prepared by the Selection Committee, and the vacancies were filled up only to deprive the right of promotion to the Respondent who was placed as contingent reserve. 15. In the present case, the Rules of 1976 did not provide for periodical list. Rule 10(1) requires the appointing authority to ascertain the probable number of vacancies likely to occur during the course of the year of recruitment. 15. In the present case, the Rules of 1976 did not provide for periodical list. Rule 10(1) requires the appointing authority to ascertain the probable number of vacancies likely to occur during the course of the year of recruitment. The empanneled assistants selected after written examination do not have a right to be appointed on the post beyond the vacancies ascertained by the appointing authority to be filled up from the recruitment. There were 30 vacancies for which applications were invited on 5.3.2002 and that out of the select list dated 21.1.2003, 39 persons were given appointment. Nine persons out of the select list received appointment beyond the number of vacancies worked out by the appointing authority. The 18 posts sanctioned by the State Government vide Government order dated 8.11.2001 were not decided to be filled up in the previous recruitment as these posts were created subject to elevation of Hon'ble Judge. In these circumstances, the appointing authority acted well within his authority under the rules to declare next selection for the 20 existing and one likely vacancy to occur on retirement before June, 2004. 16. The Petitioners as selectees of the list which does not hold good any more now no longer holds good, cannot claim a right to be appointed to the 21 vacancies advertised by notice dated 6.2.2004. 17. I do not find any force in the contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners that after 1988 the examination to routine grade clerks were held in 1994, and that since the result of 1994 examinations were declared in March, 1994, there will be no one amongst the eligible other than those who appeared along with the Petitioners, for selection in 2002, to appear in the selection advertised by notice date 6.2.2004. Out of 60 applicants in the current selections, there are 20 new applicants, and that 30 Upper Division Assistants, 7 Lower Division Assistants and 1 Routine Grade Clerk have acquired eligibility after the previous selections. In case the subject vacancies were decided to be filled from previous selection, the valuable rights of selections of these persons who have acquired eligibility subsequently was to be likely defeated. 18. In case the subject vacancies were decided to be filled from previous selection, the valuable rights of selections of these persons who have acquired eligibility subsequently was to be likely defeated. 18. For the reasons given as above, I do not find that the appointing authority acted illegally, arbitrarily or in violation of Petitioners rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in declaring fresh selections for 21 vacancies of Bench Secretary Grade II, and curtailing the life of previous select list dated 21.1.2003. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.