ORAL JUDGMENT Rule in both the petitions. Heard forthwith. As the issue involved i petitions are common, they are being disposed off by a common order. 2. The petitioners herein had invited applications for the post of which included (General 007 (including 02 ex-servicemen), 04 OBCs (in 1 Ex-serviceman), 2 SC, and 1 ST and 12 Chowkidars. The recruitment was issued on 29-8-2000. The respondents hereinafter following the pre selection process, completed the same on 18-12-2000. Before the 0 appointment could be issued, the petitioners were informed by the Mini Defence that there was a ban on selection, imposed by the Depart Personnel on 5-8-1999. As such, no actual orders of appointments were issued the respondents. After the ban was lifted, another recruitment notice was on 11-7-2003, inviting application for post of 10 Mazdoors. Aggrieved notice, the respondents filed Original Application before the Administrative Tribunal. The respondents in Writ Petition No. 2756 of 2 filed O.A. No. 663 of 2003 and respondent in Writ Petition No. 2813 of2. filed on OA No. 457 of 2004. It was the case of the respondents be~ learned Tribunal that once the selection was made and the panel P I persons whose names were on the panel had to be first given appoint only after the list of names on the panel was exhausted, was it open petitioners to invite applications for fresh recruitment. Respondents relie DOPT Office Memo 82/1982. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners the was a ban in force and as such the entire action of recruitment was authority and therefore, ab-initio void. It was also pointed out that even action had been taken, considering that the selection process itself was v respondents could claim no legal right. 3. The learned Tribunal found that the selection process was under a result of recruitment notice issued on 28th August, 2000. The advertise was issued by the competent authority and the selection process has be by a duly constituted Selection Committee, authorised by the Appointing Authority. The appointments could not be made, only because it was later discovered discovered that at the time when the recruitment was undertaken, there was a ban requirement, imposed by the Department of Personnel (DOPT). The advertise was issued by the competent authority and the selection process has be by a duly constituted Selection Committee, authorised by the Appointing Authority. The appointments could not be made, only because it was later discovered discovered that at the time when the recruitment was undertaken, there was a ban requirement, imposed by the Department of Personnel (DOPT). The Tribunal posed to itself the main question, as to whether the selection which was in the year 2000 would be alive at the time of recruitment notice dated 2003, by which fresh recruitment process was commenced. The learned Tribhunal then quoted from Office Memo (OM) dated 8-2-1982. It also noted the instructions relating to the candidates who had been selected. The Tribunal, also considered the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents, that once an requirement order had been issued to one Mr. Senapati, others similarly selected to be issued letter of appointment. This was however, contested by the responds. The learned Tribunal, however, recorded a finding that Regular selection process had been undertaken and the candidates were selected and it of the fault of the respondents, that the recruitment process was undertaken and the candidates were knowing the DOPTs ban, and that some of the selected candidates who eligible, if they apply afresh for the post, because of the age, they would not considered. The Tribunal under these circumstances thought, that in all fairness that selection made as a result of recruitment notice issued on 29-8-2003,be not scrapped and be made operative for future vacancy, arising in the said judgment. In O.A. No. 457 of 2004, which was disposed on 6th June, 2005 in judgments have also been relied Upon. The directions given in O.A. No . f 2004 was that if the applicant finds place in the list of selected candidates, applicant be appointed in existing future vacancy and should be given seniority on the basis of actual date of appointment. The Tribunal also noted that No. 663 of 2003 had been allowed on 5-ll-2003. 4. Learned counsels have urged the same contention as was urged before Tribunal, before this Court. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioners Office Memo of DOPT dated 8-2-1982 would only apply in a case when a select list had been prepared legally. The Tribunal also noted that No. 663 of 2003 had been allowed on 5-ll-2003. 4. Learned counsels have urged the same contention as was urged before Tribunal, before this Court. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioners Office Memo of DOPT dated 8-2-1982 would only apply in a case when a select list had been prepared legally. It is further reiterated that the Office Memo requires, that a person has to be declared successful, according to merit list of selected candidates. The Tribunal itself had noted that the office memo applies to candidates who have been selected. In the instant case, though the selection procedure had been set in motion and candidates were short listed, the select list ever displayed, nor was acted Upon. The purported letter containing offer of appointment was never issued to any person, including Mr. Senapati and it appears that it was taken from the file. At any rate it was not open to the learned Tribunal to have held that there was a select list and to issue directions as had issued. By an additional affidavit of Dharma Sheel, SE, Commander Works Engineer (Naval Works) Mumbai, it is pointed out, that the respondents in Writ on No. 2756 of 2004, pursuant to the recruitment notice dated 11th July, had submitted applications for being considered for selection and it is only having applied, had the respondent filed Original Application on 18th Number, 2003. It is also pointed out that the entire recruitment of 2000 was d not only in Mumbai but all over India. 5. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent it is submitted that the d Tribunal has correctly held the Office Memo of DOPT would apply and only because of the ban would not result in the selection process being, declared a nullity at law. At the highest, the recruitment process could not be completed and once the ban was lifted, the petitioners were duty bound to follow the Office Memo and first appoint those persons, whose names were found select list pursuant to the recruitment process of 2000. Reliance is also place the judgment of this Court in the case of Vasant A. Mandlekar and 70rs. vs General Manager and ors. Reliance is also place the judgment of this Court in the case of Vasant A. Mandlekar and 70rs. vs General Manager and ors. in Writ Petition No. 94 of 2006, decided on March, 2006 to point out that this Court has accepted that Office Memo dated on 27th May, 1998 would result in those who were selected had a right to have names maintained on the selection list and be offered appointment a existing and future vacancies and only after the select list is exhausted to start fresh recruitment process. 6. We have noted from the order passed in W.P. No. 941 of 2006 the only direction given was to permit the petitioners, there to apply for the vacancies advertised in January, 2006, with a direction to the respondents, not to rejection Applications of the petitioners there in the event of age bar. In our opinion judgment on the facts of the present case would be of no assistance t respondents. 7. Having said so, the question is whether this Court should interfere the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal in the exercise of its extra-or jurisdiction. We may refer to the relevant portion of the Office Memo of dated 8-2-1982 which reads as under- "3. The matter has been carefully considered. Normally recruitment whether from the open market or through a Departmental Competitive Examination should take place only when there are no candidate available from an earlier list of selected candidates. However, the likelihood of vacancies arising in future, in case names of selected candidates are already available, there should either be no f recruitment till the available selected candidates are absorbed of declared vacancies for the next examination should take into account number of persons awaiting appointment. Thus, there would be no on the period of validity of the list of selected candidates proposed extent of declared vacancies, either by the method of direct recruit or through a Departmental Competitive Examination. 4. Once a person is declared successful according to merit list of selection candidates, which is based on the declared number of vacancies appointing authority has the responsibility to appointing him even is number of vacancies undergoes a change after his name has included in the list of selected candidates. 4. Once a person is declared successful according to merit list of selection candidates, which is based on the declared number of vacancies appointing authority has the responsibility to appointing him even is number of vacancies undergoes a change after his name has included in the list of selected candidates. Thus where selections candidates are awaiting appointment, recruitment should either postponed till all the selected candidates are accommodate alternatively intake for the next recruitment reduced by the num candidates already awaiting appointment and the candidates awaiting appointment should be given appointments first, before start appointments from a fresh list from a subsequent recruitment examination. " A careful perusal of the said Office Memo would indicate that it is in respect the select list. Normally, a select list would include an equal number candidates for the posts which was advertised and also a list of persons as listed candidates. Candidates who are wait listed can be considered, if for some reason the candidates in the select list either do not accept the offer of appointment or of some other reason are declared ineligible. Once all the vacancies are filled in, the select list exhausts itself and the wait listed candidates no longer a right for consideration. This in service jurisprudence would be the rule. This aspect has been set out to understand correctly the concept of select The office memo itself speaks about the period of validity of list to the extent declared vacancies. In other words, the select list cannot exceed the declared numbers of vacancies. Having said so, we may now address ourselves to the issue whether there was a select list in existence, based on which the respondents claim a right for consideration, considering the Office Memo dated 8-2-1982. have earlier noted that there was a complete ban imposed on recruitment 5-8-1999. In other words, it was not open to any department of the Union of " to have resorted to the process of recruitment. In the instant case, the requirement notice was issued on 28-9-2000, during the period of ban. There is no for challenge to the legality of the constitution of the Committee, or the procedure lection considered of the selection committee. In the instant case, the requirement notice was issued on 28-9-2000, during the period of ban. There is no for challenge to the legality of the constitution of the Committee, or the procedure lection considered of the selection committee. The question is whether in absence of publication of the select list, merely because a Selection committee may have interviewed the candidates and prepared a list, can it be that there was a select list in existence. In the instant case, admittedly none those who were purportedly selected have been officially issued any offer appointment. This was because, the attention of the relevant department was to the letter dated 5-8-1989 imposing a ban on recruitment. The selection process had been completed on 18-2-2000. In our opinion, apart from the fact there was a duly constituted Selection Committee, the Selection Committee have been constituted to fill in posts which were available to be filled in. If elections Committee was constituted, in ignorance of the ban of recruitment, by because due procedure was followed, cannot result in the selection done Committee, becoming legal. Even in a case of selection validly done, it is to the appointing authority to cancel the select list for valid reasons. It has pointed to us that it is not merely a case of cancellation of selection to the candidates which were the subject-matter of the two Original Applications. In the additional affidavit of Dharma Sheel, SE, Commander Works Engineer (Naval s), Mumbai, it has been set out "there are altogether 801 posts all over recruitment in respect of which had been stopped." None of the dates, who were selected, were issued any offer of appointment. It could been understood if offers of appointment had been issued to some, pursuant which perhaps, the argument of the select list being in existence could have considered. In the instant case, even before the select list could be acted , it was scrapped or treated as void. A select list therefore, being in nee, would not arise. We are clearly of the opinion that learned Tribunal rejected itself in law in issuing directions in the two Original Applications were before it and which orders are now the subject-matter of the present on. 8. The submission on behalf of the petitioners that respondents are stopped challenging the selection process of 2003, in our opinion, would not be legally correct. 8. The submission on behalf of the petitioners that respondents are stopped challenging the selection process of 2003, in our opinion, would not be legally correct. The respondents had been representing to the petitioner original application made by them cannot be held against them. The immediately applied to the Tribunal by filing Original Application and stay. No stay was granted to the recruitment process. In these circumstance cannot be said that the respondents are estopped from contending t selection process of 2003 was without the authority of law. At any rate, respondents have a legal right, it is no answer to contend that they are b the principle of estoppel. Estoppel would apply to facts and not to law. That contention is therefore , rejected. 9. Considering the above, in our view both the Petitions have to be a and in the light of that, Rule made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) in petitions. However, if new vacancies are notified, the respondents be permitted apply for such vacancies as a one time measure and if they so apply applications be considered, without taking into consideration that the response dent are age baited. 10. Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs. Petition allowed