JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioners in this Bunch of writ petition are questioning the validity of the decision taken by the State Government cancelling the selection held for the posts of Assistant Marketing Inspector Grade III. 2. Brief background of the case is that large number of vacancies of Group "C” and Group “D” posts were lying vacant in the Department of Agriculture Marketing on account of ban being imposed by the State Government on the recruitment vide Government Order dated 29.3.2003. Said ban was lifted on 15.1.2004. After lifting of the said ban letter was written by the Chief Secretary addressed to all the concerned department for filling up the vacancies which were lying vacant since long on 29.6.2004. The said letter was circulated by the Chief Secretary mentioned that on priority basis appointments be made and it was also mentioned therein that Head of the respective department will have special role to play in most of the case as in majority case appointment is to be made at the level of Head of Department. Thereafter letter was sent by the State Government on 9.7.2004 which was also addressed to Director, Agriculture and Marketing mentioning therein that meeting is to take place in the Chamber of Principal Secretary on 12.7.2004. Thereafter the said meeting took place on 12.7.2004 and on the said date information was furnished to the effect that there are 711 posts sanctioned and against the same 479 have been filled and 232 posts are still lying vacant. Similarity of work in between Marketing Distribution and Mandi Parishad was also noted, and necessity for filling up the remaining vacancy was also directed to be looked into vide letter dated 14.7.2004 and the next date of meeting was fixed on 16.7.2004. On 27.7.2004 letter was send and by means of the same details of steps taken in respect of the appointment was asked for. Thereafter of the same date dated 27.7.2004, letter was sent informing that meeting was fixed on 28.7.2004 and Director was asked to participate in the said meeting with all details. Director on 27.7.2004 wrote letter mentioning therein that details are being furnished qua the existing vacancies and suitable directives be issued in the matter of making appointment. Further steps are being undertaken for filling up the Class III and Class IV posts. Thereafter advertisement was issued on 8.8.2004. Director on 27.7.2004 wrote letter mentioning therein that details are being furnished qua the existing vacancies and suitable directives be issued in the matter of making appointment. Further steps are being undertaken for filling up the Class III and Class IV posts. Thereafter advertisement was issued on 8.8.2004. Each one of the petitioners claim that pursuant to said advertisement he/she applied for consideration of his/her candidature and thereafter select list was finalized and published on notice board on 6.11.2004 wherein name of each one of the petitioners figured. 3. Petitioners have contended that in respect of declaration of the result no action was being taken then similarly situated incumbent preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16095 of 2005 before this Court and this Court directed the respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioner or show cause. Petitioners have contended that in stead of complying with the directives to issue appointment letters, petitioners acquired knowledge that the decision has been taken to cancel the entire selection. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed and it has been contended that action which has been taken by the State Government is rightful decision and none of the legal right of the petitioners stand defeated by any means. It has been contended that in spite of the fact that directives were issued for non-declaration of the result on 1.11.2004, illegally result has been sought to be declared on 6.11.2004 and further it has been sought to be contended that there is large scale illegality and the appointment has not at all been made in consonance with the Rules and further at the time of attaining the age of superannuation said list has been sought to be published and date shown as 6.11.2004 is incorrect and maneuverered date. It has been contended that selection in pursuance to the advertisement had already been stayed by Lucknow Bench of this Court on 8.11.2004 and entire thing has been sought to be manipulated in order to overcome and override the same but in spite of that in back date on 6.11.2004 select list has been set up. 5. It has been contended that selection in pursuance to the advertisement had already been stayed by Lucknow Bench of this Court on 8.11.2004 and entire thing has been sought to be manipulated in order to overcome and override the same but in spite of that in back date on 6.11.2004 select list has been set up. 5. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed to show that Director has no personal interest in the matter and, on the pressure being exerted by State Government after lifting the ban, all the appointments have been validly made in bona fide of exercise of power. Valid selection process has been undertaken and no fault can be found in the selection and petitioners have been appointed as they are outcome of selection made through due advertisement by duly constituted Selection Committee, as such there is no infirmity in the same. 6. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged present bunch of writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Apart from this original record qua selection proceedings have also been produced. 7. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case impugned order of cancellation of select list is totally arbitrary and unreasonable as pursuant to the directives issued by State Government selection process had been undertaken in free, fair and transparent manner as such decision of cancellation of select list is unsustainable and writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Sri Vijendra Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri P.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand countered the said submission by contending that mere inclusion of name in the select list does not confer any right and none of the legal right of the petitioners have been infringed and coupled with this entire selection proceedings is clearly dehors the rules and in the teeth of the directives issued by this Court as such no interference is required, and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. After respective arguments have been advanced, the relevant service Rules which hold the field, executive instructions and process of selection which has been undertaken is being adverted to. 10. 9. After respective arguments have been advanced, the relevant service Rules which hold the field, executive instructions and process of selection which has been undertaken is being adverted to. 10. Selection and appointment in Subordinate Agriculture Marketing Services is dealt with as per Rules framed in exercise of power vested under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India known as U.P. Subordinate Agriculture Marketing (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 1992. As per said service Rules entire process of selection is to be undertaken through the agency of U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board. Subordinate Service Selection Board has been rescinded and done away with as such agency through which appointment is to be made does not exist. Post of Agriculture Marketing Inspector is technical post. State of U.P. in exercise of its power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India promulgated yet another set of Rules known as U.P. Procedure of Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts on Technical in nature for which specific qualifications are prescribed (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules 2001. Said Rules applied to Group ‘C’ posts referred to in Clause (IV) sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2001 as amended from time to time which were within the purview of U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission prior to commencement of U.P. Subordinate Service Commission (Repeal) Act, 1998 but the provision of making direct recruitment to such posts through the Selection Commission exists in the relevant service rules at the time of commencement of Rules. State of U.P. again for establishment of Subordinate Service Selection Commission for certain categories for Subordinate Services and matter connected therewith and incidental thereto has come up with U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission, 2006 but the said Act till date has not been enforced. In the light of these provisions relevant record in question has been pursued. State of U.P. again for establishment of Subordinate Service Selection Commission for certain categories for Subordinate Services and matter connected therewith and incidental thereto has come up with U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission, 2006 but the said Act till date has not been enforced. In the light of these provisions relevant record in question has been pursued. Record in question reveals that pursuant to various queries which were made the Director in its turn on 4.8.2004 passed resolution under his Presidentship wherein seven other incumbents have participated and it was resolved that qua the posts of Assistant Marketing Inspector, procedure as provided under U.P. Subordinate Agriculture Marketing (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules 1992 be adopted and selection committee was also constituted in term of Rules 15 and 16 comprising the Director Marketing and Agriculture, Assistant Director, Marketing and Agriculture Dr. Amit Yadav, Assistant Director, Marketing and Agriculture, II Headquarter and Gangadin, Assistant Agriculture Officer, Faizabad. Resolution had also been passed for advertising the post. Thereafter record in question reveals that meeting took place on 20.8.2004, wherein decision was taken qua the applications received. Again meeting took place on 6.9.2004, resolving therein that as per the merit list prepared, candidates be called for interview. Thereafter on 16.10.2004 for making selection and appointment as per provisions contained under U.P. Procedure of Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules, 2003 it was resolved to call ten time candidates for interview. Thereafter it has been contended that interview took place and select list was finalized. Admitted position which is emerging from the record is that selection proceedings took place as per the provisions as contained in U.P. Subordinate Agriculture Marketing (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules 1992 and U.P. Procedure of Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C Posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules, 2003. 11. Much reliance has also been placed on the Government Order dated 21.8.2001 wherein directives have been issued for ensuring the selection at the earliest and the dominant role to be played by respective Head of Department. In this backdrop in the light of relevant Government Order and Rules the claim of the petitioners is being adverted to. 11. Much reliance has also been placed on the Government Order dated 21.8.2001 wherein directives have been issued for ensuring the selection at the earliest and the dominant role to be played by respective Head of Department. In this backdrop in the light of relevant Government Order and Rules the claim of the petitioners is being adverted to. Accepting this position that directives were issued for making appointment, question which is to be adverted to as to whether appointment have been made strictly in consonance with the rules or not. U.P. Subordinate Agriculture Marketing (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 1992 talks of selection to be made through U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board. As per the said Rules appendix has been provided for and qua posts of Assistant Marketing Inspector, Appointing Authority as mentioned in Column 7 is Assistant Agriculture Marketing Officer and said posts is to be filled by direct recruitment as per Column 10. Appointing Authority thus, as per the same is Assistant Agriculture Marketing Officer. Government Order dated 21.8.2001 has also been perused as much emphasis has been placed on the said Government Order which provides that the posts qua which special qualification have been provided for and which are of technical nature, selection qua the same shall be ensured by Department/Head of Department/Appointing Authority. Reference has also been given of U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group “C” Posts (Outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2001. Paragraph 8 of the said Government Order, provides for distributing the vacancies in two parts (a) the posts which are of technical nature and for which special qualifications have been provided for, selection of same shall be got held by Head of Department, as per paragraph-9 of the said Government Order (b) the posts which are not of technical nature, and selection of which is to take place at District Level, by the District Selection Committee. Paragraph 9 provides for that in selection mentioned on the posts where selection proceedings is to be held at the level of Head of Department, qua the same in case Head of the Department himself is the Appointing Authority or his subordinate is Appointing Authority then as per prevalent service rules, Advertisement be made. Said Government Order has mentioned of Rules 2001 known as U.P. Procedure of Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2001. Said Government Order has mentioned of Rules 2001 known as U.P. Procedure of Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2001. The Rules known as U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C Posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2001 has also been done away with and thereafter another set of Rules have been introduced in exercise of authority vested under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India known as U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C Posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002. The said Rules have been amended by First Amendment known as U.P. Procedure of Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C Posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules 2003. Selection procedure, as per the record, followed is as per U.P. Procedure of Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C Posts (Outside the purview of the UP. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002 as amended in 2003. As per said Rules, Rule 2(a) appointing authority has been clearly defined meaning as the authority empowered to make appointment under relevant service rules. Rule 5 deals with procedure for direct recruitment. Constitution of Selection Committee in the matter of Direct Recruitment has also been provided in Rule 6. Note has also been appended to said Rule, which provides that if appointing authority is Head of Department, then in such case all the members of Selection Committee shall be nominated by him, and he may on his behalf nominate an officer senior to other members as Chairman. 12. Here in the present case one of the reasons for cancellation of all the appointments is that the same have been made by incompetent authority. Director, Agriculture and Marketing is not at all appointing authority of the Assistant Marketing Inspectors. It may be true that in the amendment which has been proposed Director has been shown as appointing authority but till date said rules have not at all been enforced as such said proposed Amended rules cannot be utilized. Director, Agriculture and Marketing is not at all appointing authority of the Assistant Marketing Inspectors. It may be true that in the amendment which has been proposed Director has been shown as appointing authority but till date said rules have not at all been enforced as such said proposed Amended rules cannot be utilized. Here fact of the matter is that at no point of time selection committee headed by appointing authority had ever been constituted either in terms of provision as contained under Rules 15 and 16 of U.P. Subordinate Agriculture Marketing (Non Gazetted) Service Rules 1992 or U.P. Procedure of Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002 and as amended by U.P. Procedure of Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C Posts (Outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules, 2003 as has been mentioned in the resolution dated 4.8.2004 and 16.10.2004. Appointing Authority under 1992 Rules is Assistant Agriculture Marketing Officer. The Director himself constituted selection committee headed by him ignoring the mandate of Rules relied upon that Selection Committee was to comprise Appointing Authority as its Chairman. In the present case record reveals that constitution of the Selection Committee was clearly dehors the rules as Director has shown himself as Chairman, and three incumbents namely Dr. Sugriva Shukla, Deputy Director, Agriculture Marketing (Member); Dr. Amit Yadav, Assistant Director, Second (Member) Sri Gangadeen, Assistant Agriculture Marketing Officer, Member Representative of Scheduled Caste Category. Consequently no fault can be found in the order of cancellation of the list wherein principal ground is that selection had been made by the authority who were not at all competent. 13. Much emphasis has also been laid on the fact that unnecessarily motives have been imputed to the Director merely because he was attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2004, the same will in no way discredit the selection. It is true that in the present case Director was to attain the age of superannuation on 31.12.2004 but series of correspondence also clearly reflects that repeated request were being made for filling up the backlog vacancies and by means of letter dated 27.7.2004 explanation was called from the concerned authority and same included the name of Director Agriculture and Marketing also. Reply was submitted to the same on same date and therein it was mentioned that selection process is being undertaken. Correspondence up to the level of 28.7.2004 prima-facie does not indicate that Director at his own level was interested in making appointment. However the fact of the matter is that once letter dated 1.11.2004 has been sent asking the Director not to proceed with the on going selection process then prima facie it was wholly unjustifiable on his part to come out with the case that result was declared on 6.11.2004. It was only when Director quit his office the said select list saw the light of the day as Ram Dhayani Maurya clearly mentioned that said list was got received in the Camp office on 31.12.2004 and Camp office had no knowledge of aforesaid list being published on notice board. All these are essentially question of fact which requires investigation and inquiry. Lucknow Bench of this Court had already passed interim order on 8.11.2004 and in this background if attempt was made to circumvent the order passed by Lucknow Bench, then same is serious issue qua the conduct of the Director. All these aspect of the matter certainly requires investigation, and if in this background selection has been cancelled, the same cannot be termed to be arbitrary decision on the part of the respondents. 14. It would also relevant to mention here that bare perusal of select list dated 6.11.2004 would go to show that it was categorically mentioned therein at the bottom of the said list that said list be got approved by the State Government and then appointment letter to be issued. Thus, ever as per list which was published allegedly on 6.11.2004 only when State Government would have accorded permission then said list was to be enforced. Once State Government on 1.11.2004 had already asked the Director not to proceed with the selection process, then in this background of the case, as far as petitioners are concerned non of their rights have been infringed, inasmuch as, even said select list itself was provisional in nature. State Government in its wisdom had chosen not to accept the said list and had given reasons for not acting on the said select list. Reason which has been indicated in the impugned order of cancellation cannot be said to be unjustifiable. 15. There is one more aspect of the matter. State Government in its wisdom had chosen not to accept the said list and had given reasons for not acting on the said select list. Reason which has been indicated in the impugned order of cancellation cannot be said to be unjustifiable. 15. There is one more aspect of the matter. It is well settled that merely because name of incumbent finds place in the select list, they do not get automatic right to get selection. Hon’ble Apex Court on this aspect of the matter in the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Shankarsan Das v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 ; Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and others, AIR 1993 SC 796 and in the case of State of U.P. v. Raj Kumar Sharma, 2006 (3) SCC 330 , has clearly taken the view that mere inclusion of name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected and the decision not to fill up the vacancies can be taken for bona fide and appropriate reasons. 16. Here in the present case as far as petitioners are concerned as merely their names were mentioned in the purported select list dated 6.11.2004, same does not confer any indefeasible right. Valid reasons have been given by the authority for undoing of the selection process. 17. Consequently, none of the writ petitions have any merit and as such all these writ petitions lack substance and are dismissed accordingly. Petition Dismissed. ————