Judgment ( 1. ) AS the questions involved and the legal issues are common, all the three petitions are being heard and decided by this common judgment. ( 2. ) FOR the sake of convenience averments made and the documents filed in w. P. No. 5131/2005 (s) is referred to. ( 3. ) PETITIONERS in all these three petitions submitted applications in the office of district and Sessions Judge, Guna, seeking appointment in pursuance to the advertisement issued vide Annexure All. By the aforesaid advertisement process for recruitment to the post of Process Writer (Assistant Grade III) were initiated. The recruitment was for filling up seven posts. Out of the seven posts of Process writer, one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, one for Scheduled tribe, one for OBC and four for General Candidate. Petitioner Ramakant Choudhary in W. P. No. 5131/05 (s) submitted his application seeking appointment on a post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. Petitioner Sunil Sharma in w. P. No. 5133/05 (s) sought appointment in the General category and petitioner anand Suryavanshi in W. P. No. 5132/05 (s) sought appointment on the post reserved for OBC candidate. ( 4. ) IT is case of the petitioners that all of them were eligible for appointment and finding them to be so they were noticed vide Annexure P/2 on 7. 7. 2004 to appear in the written examination which was scheduled to be held on 25. 7. 2001 on 11 a. m. It is stated that they appeared in the written test and on being found successful they were called to appear in a interview to be held on 26. 9. 2004 vide communication Annexure P/3 dated 9. 9. 2004. On being found successful it is stated that the District and Sessions Judge vide his memo dated 16. 11. 2004 annexure P/4 informed the petitioner Ramakant Choudhary that the caste certificate attached with his application had expired and therefore, he was directed to submit the requisite caste certificate issued by the prescribed authority within seven days. It is stated that the petitioner Ramakant Choudhary complied with the aforesaid direction. In the case of petitioner Anand Suryawanshi vide similar memo dated 16. 11. 2004 Annexure A/4 he was directed to submit certificate of permanent residence and caste certificate. This petitioner also complied with the said requirement. It is stated that the petitioner Ramakant Choudhary complied with the aforesaid direction. In the case of petitioner Anand Suryawanshi vide similar memo dated 16. 11. 2004 Annexure A/4 he was directed to submit certificate of permanent residence and caste certificate. This petitioner also complied with the said requirement. In the case of petitioner Sunil Sharma it is stated that no such communication was received. Further after following the aforesaid procedure it is stated that the District and Sessions judge who is the appointing authority as per the Recruitment Rules instead of issuing appointment orders to the selected candidate i. e. all the three petitioners forwarded the selection proceedings and the select list for approval to the Registrar General of the High Court in accordance to some administrative and executive instructions issued in this regard. ( 5. ) ACCORDING to the petitioners even though they were found suitable in this process of selection and they had complied with all the formalities in this regard, the District and Sessions Judge who was the appointing authority forwarded the matter to the Registry of the High Court for approval which was not needed. When the matter came to the High Court it is stated that in the case of petitioner ramakant Choudhary further objection was raised to the effect that the computer education certificate of this petitioner is not from an approved institute and therefore, he was directed to submit the requisite certificate. D. O. Letter in this regard is filed as Annexure A/6. It is stated that this petitioner complied with the aforesaid requirement also vide Annexure A/7 but still when no appointment order was issued and when the District and Sessions Judge appointing authority, legally bound to issue appointment order did not do so, this petition was filed. Similar action was taken in the case of petitioner Anand Suryawanshi also but in his case he was directed to produce certain documents with regard to his residence and caste vide Annexure A/5 filed in his petition which is said to have been complied with. ( 6. Similar action was taken in the case of petitioner Anand Suryawanshi also but in his case he was directed to produce certain documents with regard to his residence and caste vide Annexure A/5 filed in his petition which is said to have been complied with. ( 6. ) GRIEVANCE of the petitioners now in these petitions are that even though it is the District and Sessions Judge who was competent to make the selection and he having selected the petitioners in the category mentioned in each of the cases, referred the matter to the High Court and on the ground that vacancies in the reserved category are not available or that the Certificate is not proper, appointment orders are not being issued. Petitioners contended that once under the recruitment rules, it is the District and Sessions Judge who is empowered to make appointment, referring the matter to the High Court and seeking approval of the High Court was not required. It is stated that the High Court cannot interfere in the matter and refuse appointment to the petitioners when the Recruitment Rules provide for appointment in accordance to the said Rules and the appointment is made by the district and Sessions Judge who is the appointing authority. By referring to the recruitment and Conditions of Service of Contingency Paid (District and Sessions judge) Employees Rules, 1980, it is emphasized by the learned counsel that the appointing authority under the aforesaid Rules is the District and Sessions Judge and therefore, the action initiated at the instance of the High Court which is not the authorized statutory authority in the matter is unsustainable. It is the case of the petitioners that when the District and Sessions Judge is the statutory appointing authority referring the matter to the High Court and thereafter refusing to issue appointment order on the objection of the High Court or without approval of the High court is an action which is not permissible under the Rules and therefore, unsustainable. ( 7. ) THE second limb of argument advanced by Shri A. D. Deoras, learned senior Counsel was that in the notice Annexure A/1 seven vacancies notified were determined after considering the reservation roaster as is apparent from the indications made in the said advertisement. ( 7. ) THE second limb of argument advanced by Shri A. D. Deoras, learned senior Counsel was that in the notice Annexure A/1 seven vacancies notified were determined after considering the reservation roaster as is apparent from the indications made in the said advertisement. It is argued by him that once the advertisement is issued after determination of vacancies as per the roaster then contending that the vacancies is not properly determined cannot be accepted and respondents are estopped from changing the vacancy position on the ground that 100 point roaster is not properly followed. The third ground advanced at the time of hearing was that in case of all the petitioners all the requisite information and documents sought for by the District and Session;, Judge was forwarded and on being satisfied when the District and Sessions Judge had forwarded the list to the high Court then the High Court could not go back on the list on the ground that some documents produced particularly the certificate about qualification pertaining to computer education being not approved, cannot be raised as a ground when such an objection was not raised on any earlier occasion. That apart it is stated that the certificates produced by the petitioners pertaining to computer education is from a recognized institute and on the aforesaid ground appointment cannot be denied to the petitioners. Accordingly petitioners submitted that they are entitled to the relief claimed in this petition. ( 8. ) RESPONDENTS have refuted the aforesaid and have filed a return in each case and according to the return of the respondents the High Court is empowered under Article 235 of the Constitution to interfere in the matter and as the High court has power to control functioning of the subordinate courts action initiated is proper and not vitiated. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner Sunil sharma in W. P. No. 5133/05 (s) was not recommended in the selection process conducted and therefore, he cannot claim any relief. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner Sunil sharma in W. P. No. 5133/05 (s) was not recommended in the selection process conducted and therefore, he cannot claim any relief. However, as far as petitioners Ramakant Choudhary and Anand Suryawanshi are concerned it is pointed out that as per Memo issued by the High Court on 14th October 1999 and further vide 16th August 2004 approval of the High Court is necessary and when the matter was scrutinized by the High Court it was found the reservation policy and the requirement of the statutory provision as per Anusuchit Janjati Aur Anya Pichhada Varg ke Liye Arakshan Adhiniyam 1994 and 1998 have not been followed. Only one post was vacant in the reserved Scheduled Tribe category and no posts was available in the OBC and Scheduled Caste category and therefore, ramakant Choudhary and Anand Suryawanshi cannot seek appointment as the vacancies indicated in their respective category was found to be not in existence and therefore, it was not approved. It is further stated that the petitioners ramakant Choudhary and Anand Suryawanshi have not submitted proper certificate from an approved Computer Education institute and therefore, they were not selected. Case of the respondents are that the 100 point roaster was not properly followed before issuing the advertisement and as the certificate with regard to fulfilling the qualification of computer education was not from an approved university or authority name of petitioners Ramakant Choudhary and Anand suryawanshi were not approved. Accordingly, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioners. ( 9. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the facts that have come on record it is seen that the following questions arise for consideration:- (1) The first question is as to whether the power and control exercised by the High Court and the approval sought for by the District and sessions Judge was proper or not and to what extent power under Article 235 can be exercised by the High Court in the matter of recruitment process? (2) The second question would be as to whether refusal to accord approval by the High court in case power exists on the grounds raised in the return is justified or not? ( 10. (2) The second question would be as to whether refusal to accord approval by the High court in case power exists on the grounds raised in the return is justified or not? ( 10. ) AS far as the first question is concerned it would be seen that the control vested in the High Court with regard to functioning of the subordinate Courts is contemplated under Article 235 of the Constitution. Article 235 of the Constitution makes a provision with regard to control of the High Court over subordinate Courts. In fact, Chapter VI of the Constitution deals with Subordinate Courts and the procedure for appointment Of District Judge, Validation of appointments of, and judgments. Recruitment of persons other than distract judges to the judicial service, control over subordinate courts, interpretation of the expression "district judge" and judicial service" and application of the provisions of Chapter VI to certain class or classes of magistrates. Article 235 of the Constitution reads as under :- "235. Control over subordinate courts - The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, arid the grant of leave to, persons-belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed undersuch law. " ( 11. ) THE provision of Article 235 itself was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of R. M. Gurjar and another Vs. High Court of Gujarat and others - (1992)4 SCC Page 10, in that case the question involved was as to whether the control vested in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution extends to ministerial officers and servants in the establishment of the subordinate courts or only to the District Judge and the other Judges and presiding officers in accordance to the expressions and interpretation to the expressions "district judge" and "judicial service". ( 12. ( 12. ) IN the case of R. M. Gurjar (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, wherein this question arose, it is seen that faced with some difficulties on account of interpretation to article 235 made by different Benches a Learned Single Judge of the Gujarat high Court referred the following two questions to be decided by a larger Bench. The two questions referred to are : " (1) Whether the High Court or its administrative side has jurisdiction to enhance the penalty imposed by the District Judge upon a member of the ministerial staff of the subordinate court in exercise of the powers of review conferred by Rule 23 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1971? (2) Whether the control vested in the High Courts under Article 235 of the Constitution is exercisable only over members of the judicial service of the State as defined in Article 23 6 (b) or whether the ministerial officers and servants on the establishment of the subordinate courts are also ultimately subject to such control?" The Full Bench of the High Court dealt with question No. 2 and recorded a conclusion that the control under Article 235 of the Constitution extends to the ministerial officers and servants of the establishment of the subordinate Courts also and after interpreting Article 235 and the Discipline and Appeal Rules, the first question was also decided against the petitioners. The Supreme Court in the case of R. M. Gurjar (supra) examined both these questions and as far as the second question is concerned in para 7 recorded the following conclusion with regard to the aforesaid question :- "we are also of the opinion" that the answer to the second question as rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court is unexceptional and does not call for any interference. " ( 13. ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court it is clear that the control on subordinate courts conferred to the High Court under article 235 of the Constitution is not confined only to matters pertaining to the district Judge or other subordinate Judges but also expands to ministerial officers and servants of the establishment of the subordinate courts. ( 14. ( 14. ) IN that view of the matter, even though the District Judge is the appointing authority for Class III and IV staff but the Chief Justice of the High Court on the basis of power vested on him vide delegation from the Full Court has issued certain guide lines and directions warranting information with regard to appointment and recruitments to be sent to the High Court, certain procedures to be followed and thereafter the appointment to be made. In this regard the instructions and guide lines issued by the High Court are contained in Annexure R/1 dated 16. 10. 99, annexure R/3 dated 16th August 2004 and the reasons for doing so is available in the note sheet Annexure R/4. ( 15. ) EVEN though the District Judge is the appointing authority but by virtue of the powers vested under Article 235 if the High Court has prescribed certain procedures to be followed and for verification of the said procedures if the records and information are called from the District Courts and certain observations made and control exercised with regard to functioning by the District Courts in the matter of recruitment and appointment, it cannot be said that the same is unsustainable or illegal when the constitutional mandate under Article 235 permits for the same. ( 16. ) IN the present case, the District Judge referred the matter to the High, Court only in view of the aforesaid requirement and when the High Court had pointed out some irregularities in the matter, the District Judge has accepted the same and has refused to issue appointment orders. The procedure so followed is nothing but the exercise of power by the High Court and acceptance of the same by the district and Sessions Judge and in doing so no error is committed which warrants interference. ( 17. The procedure so followed is nothing but the exercise of power by the High Court and acceptance of the same by the district and Sessions Judge and in doing so no error is committed which warrants interference. ( 17. ) EVEN though the power of appointment is vested with the District and sessions Judge and in exercise of the control granted over the subordinate Courts by the Constitution when the matter is scrutinized and the High Court makes certain observations or instructions in exercise of that power and on acceptance of the same the District Judge changes his initial opinion and recommendation, it cannot be said that the District and Sessions Judges power for appointment is taken away or that the High Court has interfered with the statutory jurisdiction of the District Judge available in his capacity as an appointing authority. In fact the district and Sessions Judge after initiating -the selection process forwarded the proceedings and select list to the High Court for its consideration and when the high Court pointed out some irregularities in the same, the District Judge has accepted it and has refused to issue appointment order. This is what has happened in the matter and therefore, the arguments of Shri A. D. Deoras, learned Senior counsel with regard to the interference made by the High Court and breach of statutory provisions pertaining to powers of the. District and Sessions Judge being infringed cannot be accepted and therefore, question No. 1 is answered against the petitioners as it is found that the procedure followed and the action is in accordance to law. ( 18. ) AS far as the second question and refusal to appoint on merit consideration is concerned, from the return filed by the respondents, it is seen that the selection committee with regard to General candidate recommended the name of three persons namely, Sumit Dwivedi, Ajay Kumar Dave and Jagdish Sharma. In the OBC category petitioner Anand Suryawanshi was recommended and in the Scheduled Caste Category petitioner Ramakant Choudhary was recommended and in Scheduled Tribe category one Jagat Singh Dabar was recommended. In the General category only four posts were available. In the OBC category petitioner Anand Suryawanshi was recommended and in the Scheduled Caste Category petitioner Ramakant Choudhary was recommended and in Scheduled Tribe category one Jagat Singh Dabar was recommended. In the General category only four posts were available. According to the return filed by the respondents, for three posts Sumit Dwivedi, Ajay Kumar Dave and jagdish Sharma were recommended and for one post due to transfer of an employee from Gwalior in the category of Assistant Grade III and his posting in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Guna the posts was not available, as there were only three vacancies in this category. That being so for the three vacancies available as per merit, three persons have been appointed and petitioner sunil Sharma who is claiming appointment in this category cannot be appointed as all the four posts are filled up by the process initiated. ( 19. ) AS far as appointment in the OBC and Scheduled Caste category is concerned respondents have pointed out that after scrutiny of the available vacancy in accordance to the 100 point roaster, it is found that only one post in the category of Scheduled Tribe is available and against this one post one Jagat Singh Dabar has been appointed. Respondents have pointed out that they have recalculated the vacancies as per the Adhiniyam of 1994 and 1998 and the 100 point roaster and it is seen that no vacancy in the Scheduled Caste and OBC category is available. Merely because the advertisement speaks about availability of vacancy as per the roaster, that does not mean the respondents are estopped from reexamining the matter. If earlier some mistake is committed in calculating the vacancy and if on subsequent scrutiny this mistake is detected respondents are well within their right in making correction of the said mistake. When vacancies are not available in the category of Scheduled Caste and OBC category respondents cannot be mandated to make appointment of the two petitioners ramakant Choudhary or Anand Suryawanshi. Contention of Shri Deoras, learned senior Counsel to the effect that once the advertisement is issued as per the 100 point roaster, the vacancies are indicated to be existing is not correct. Respondents can always reassess the matter and in the absence of any arbitrariness or illegality in such reassessment being pointed out, interference on this ground is not permissible. ( 20. Respondents can always reassess the matter and in the absence of any arbitrariness or illegality in such reassessment being pointed out, interference on this ground is not permissible. ( 20. ) IN fact this is a case where petitioners name are empanelled and after empanelment for the reasons as indicated hereinabove, the appointing authority has refused to issue orders of appointment. Mere empanelment of the petitioners does not confer upon them any legal right to seek appointment. Inclusion in the panel does not confer any such enforceable right. This principle is laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of All India SC and ST Employees association and Another Vs. A. Arthur Jean and others, 2001 (6) SCC 380 , punjab State Electricity Board and others Vs. Malkiat Singh, 2004 AIR SCW 5768, so also in the case of State of U. P. and others Vs. Rajkumar Sharma and others, 2006 (3) SCC 330 . In that view of the matter, empanelment by the District judge does not mean that petitioners are entitled to be appointed. The District judge after empanelment can always refuse to issue appointment order on cogent and justifiable reasons being established. ( 21. ) THAT apart from the records it is seen that as per the advertisement knowledge of computer was a mandatory requirement and certificate from a approved institute imparting computer education was to be submitted. In the case of petitioners anand Suryawanshi and Ramakant Choudhary the certificate of computer education and knowledge submitted does not indicate that the institute which has issued this Certificate is approved by any Government, Authority, University or establishment. The certificate in this regard submitted by the petitioners and available on record only indicates that they have undergone some computer education in the case of Shri Ramakant Choudhary from Harsh Computer Centre, rajgarh. There is nothing to indicate mat this institute is approved by the Government or any other University or authority empowered under the rules to approve the institute. Similar is the position in the case of petitioner Anand Suryawanshi. In his case certificate is issued by Computer Point, Computer Services, Guna vide annexure P/5. This Certificate also does not indicate as to by which authority, government or university this institute or centre is approved. Similar is the position in the case of petitioner Anand Suryawanshi. In his case certificate is issued by Computer Point, Computer Services, Guna vide annexure P/5. This Certificate also does not indicate as to by which authority, government or university this institute or centre is approved. In the absence of fulfilling qualification of computer education from a recognized institute or university, objection of the respondents cannot be overruled merely on the ground that on earlier occasion, District and Sessions Judge had approved the Certificate or qualification. The District and Sessions Judges approval is subject to further scrutiny by the High Court and if on such scrutiny the High Court has pointed out some irregularity which is accepted by the District and Sessions Judge, the same cannot be termed as illegal warranting interference into the matter. ( 22. ) ACCORDINGLY, in the facts and circumstances of the case finding the action of the respondents to be based on proper consideration, in accordance to the requirement of law, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, all the three petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.