ORDER In the instant case, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to make an order of appointment and posting immediately taking the petitioner to the clerical cadre post in the existing vacancies in the respondent-Bank as per their notification dated 29th April, 2006 and also the letter of appointment/selection issued to the petitioner dated 30th May, 1989 vide Annexure-C. Further, petitioner has sought for calling the records from the office of the respondents in connection with the selection process which was done in the year 1989. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the petitioner had earlier applied for the post of 'Clerk-cum-Cashier' in the Regional Rural Bank through the then Banking Service Recruitment Board in the year 1989. She was selected and a communication dated 30th May, 1989 was issued to the petitioner in Reference No. PSD/89 intimating that she has been selected to the post of Probationary Junior Assistant subject to the terms and conditions as noted by the Banking Service Recruitment Board in their allotment letter, as and when the vacancies arise in their Bank and that, further correspondent need not be made until she hears from the Bank. 3. When things stood thus, now, the respondents herein have issued the impugned notification dated 29th April, 2006 vide Annexure-E published in the 'Vijaya Karnataka' in the Hubli Edition calling for the applications to fill up the post of 'Clerk-cum-Cashier'. Therefore, in view of the vacancy notified in the cadre of 'Clerk-cum-Cashier', petitioner herein sought for a direction, directing the respondents to implement the communication dated 30th May, 1989 issued by them and direct them to appoint her to the cadre of 'Clerk-cum-Cashier'. Therefore, she felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate relief as stated supra. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents-Bank. 5. After careful evaluation of the entire material available on file including the statement of objections filed by respondents, it is not in dispute that, the Malaprabha Grameena Bank, Dharwad has issued the impugned communication dated 30th May, 1989 intimating the petitioner that, she has been selected to the post of 'Probationary Junior Assistant' and she has been allotted to the said Bank. Further, it is specifically pointed out that, she may be appointed in the services of the Bank in the cadre of 'Probationary Junior Assistant subject to the conditions as noted by the Banking Service Recruitment Board and as and when vacancies arise in the said Bank. It is significant to note that, the said Bank has subsequently amalgamated with the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank by the notification dated 12th September, 2005 vide Annexure-D. The said notification is issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of India. Further, it is the specific stand of the respondents in their statement of objections that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be rejected on the ground that, after inordinate delay of more than 16 years, the petitioner has come up before this Court and presented the instant writ petition, seeking the directions as stated above. To substantiate the said stand, learned Counsel for respondents has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in Shakuntala Siddanagouda Patil v Banking Service Recruitment Board and Others1, wherein similar relief was sought. The said writ petitions were dismissed by this Court by its order dated 8th February, 1993. Assailing the correctness of the said order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, petitioners therein have filed the writ appeals also before the Division Bench of this Court in D. Pranesha Rao and Others v The Banking Service Recruitment Board and Others1. The said writ appeals filed by appellants have been disposed of by the Division Bench with an observation that, as and when vacancies arise, the case of appellants may be considered on top priority basis. Further, it is specifically clarified that, such appointments can be effected subject to the candidates being found eligible. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that, there is no vacancy as such in the cadre of 'Clerk-cum-Cashier' in the then Malaprabha Grameena Bank. To further substantiate the said submission, he has taken me through the communication made by the sponsored Bank dated 9th March, 2005 produced along with the statement of objections vide Annexure-A1, wherein they have pointed out that so far as, Malaprabha Grameena Bank is concerned, there is no vacancy for the post of 'Clerk-cum-Cashier'. To further substantiate the said submission, he has taken me through the communication made by the sponsored Bank dated 9th March, 2005 produced along with the statement of objections vide Annexure-A1, wherein they have pointed out that so far as, Malaprabha Grameena Bank is concerned, there is no vacancy for the post of 'Clerk-cum-Cashier'. Therefore, it is the stand of learned Counsel for respondents-Bank that, when there is no vacancy of the said post in their Bank, question of considering the request of the petitioner giving effect to the communication issued in the year 1989, that too, after lapse of 16 long years does not arise nor is the same justifiable. Further, as rightly observed by the Division Bench of this Court, so far as eligibility criteria is concerned, petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification as on date. When petitioner has abandoned her rights for nearly more than one and a half decades, the question of considering her request at this stage is not permissible. 6. Further learned Counsel for respondents-Bank submitted that, petitioner has no right to claim appointment as a matter of right and seek direction to give effect to the impugned communication 30th May, 1989 vide Annexure-C. To substantiate the said stand, learned Counsel for respondents-Bank has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Jayamohan v State of Kerala and Another1, wherein the Apex Court has held that, it is the settled legal position that, merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right to appointment and 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. 7. In view of the above settled legal position, as held by the Apex Court, I do not find any justification or good grounds to entertain the instant writ petition and issue the direction as prayed for by petitioner, that too after lapse of more than 16 years when the petitioner has slept over the matter and abandoned her right of redressal of her grievance at the appropriate time. When there is no vacancy as such, as pointed out in the objections filed by respondents, question of entertaining the instant writ petition and issuing the directions as sought in the writ petition does not arise and the same is also not justifiable in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed as devoid of merits.