JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed for seeking a direction to the opposite parties to appoint him as a candidate peon in the judgeship of Sambalpur-Jharsuguda-Deogarh. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on the basis of an interview a merit list containing 38 names for appointment of candidate peons in the judgeship of Sambalpur was prepared on 28.8.2002 under Annexure - 2. In the said merit list the name of Petitioner found place at serial No. 33. Out of 38 selected candidates, 20 candidates were immediately enrolled as candidate peons in 2002 and during 2003 ten candidates left the service and against the said vacancies the persons selected at serial Nos. 21 to 30 were appointed. Grievance of the Petitioner is that though in 2003, 4 vacancies occurred for appointment of candidate peons and he has made a representation for his appointment the opposite parties have not considered the same as yet. Further the Petitioner claims to be a candidate belonging to reserved category and under the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies for S.C. and S.T. Act, 1975 he is entitled to get an appointment. 3. We have heard Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Khuntia, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 4. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that in view of the provisions contained in the G.R. & CO. the Petitioner has a right to be appointed as a candidate peon and the select list once prepared remains alive till the next selection is held and the appointing authority is bound to offer appointment to those in the select list whenever the vacancy occurs prior to the next selection. 5. On the contrary Mr. P.K. Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that select list has a life of one year only. It is also not permissible to fill up over and above the advertised vacancies and once said vacancies are filled up, the selection process stands exhausted and nothing survives for adjudication at this lapse of time. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. The candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been given a hostile discrimination. Similar view has subsequently been taken by the Supreme Court in Asha Kaul (Mrs) and Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, ; Union of India Vs. S.S. Uppal and another, ; Hanuman Prasad and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ; Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Vijesh, ; Bihar Public Service Commission and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, ; Syndicate Bank and others Vs. Shankar Paul and others, ; Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad and Others Vs. Dr Anand Prakash Mishra and Others, ; Simanchal Panda Vs. State of Orissa and Others, ; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. S.G. Kotturappa and Another, ; Punjab State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Malkiat Singh, ; State of U.P. and Others Vs. Rajkumar Sharma and Others, ; Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Kali Dass Batish and Another, ; Divisional Forests Officers and Others Vs. M. Ramalinga Reddy, ; Jitendra Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, ; and Subha B. Nair and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, . 8. It is also the settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate after expiry of the Select List. (Vide J. Ashok Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 225; State of Bihar and others Vs. Md. Kalimuddin and others, ; State of U. P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, ; Sushma Suri Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another, ; State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sawrup Saroj, ; K. Thulaseedharan Vs. The Kerala State Public Service Commission, Trivandrum and Others, ; Deepa Keyes v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 194 ; and Subha B. Nair and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, ). Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another, ; State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sawrup Saroj, ; K. Thulaseedharan Vs. The Kerala State Public Service Commission, Trivandrum and Others, ; Deepa Keyes v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 194 ; and Subha B. Nair and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, ). It has been held therein that if the select list expires as per the rules applicable, as its life is over, no appointment can be made from the said list. 9. In State of Punjab Vs. Raghbir Chand Sharma and Another the Apex Court examined the case where only one post was advertised and the candidate whose name appeared at Serial No. 1 in the select list joined the post, but subsequently resigned. The Court rejected the contention that post can be filled up offering the appointment to the next candidate in the select list observing as under: With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select list prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. (Emphasis added) 10. The Court was of the view that it would amount to filling up the future vacancy. Any appointment made beyond the number of vacancies advertised, is without jurisdiction, therefore a nullity, inexecutable and un-enforceable in law. 11. In Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Others the Supreme Court held as under:- 5. Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution enshrines fundamental right to every citizen to claim consideration for appointment to a post under the State. Therefore, vacant posts arising or expected should be notified inviting applications from all eligible candidates to be considered for their selection in accordance with their merit. The recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution.... Therefore, vacant posts arising or expected should be notified inviting applications from all eligible candidates to be considered for their selection in accordance with their merit. The recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution.... Boards should notify the existing and excepted vacancies and the Recruitment Board should get advertisement published and recruitment should strictly be made by the respective Boards in accordance with the procedure to the notified vacancies but not to any vacancies that may arise during the process of selection. (Emphasis added) 12. In Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association Vs. State of Gujarat and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the appointments made over and above the vacancies advertised holding that such an action was neither permissible nor desirable for the reason that it would amount to 'improper exercise of power' and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, this rule can be deviated from and it can be done only after adopting policy decision based on some rational as the authority cannot fill up more posts than advertised as a matter of course. 13. In Prem Singh and Others Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and Others the Apex court observed as under- ...The selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement are for a certain number of posts only, the State cannot make more appointments than the number of posts advertised..... State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on the posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. (Emphasis added) 14. The said judgment in Prem Singh was followed with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, . 15. In Union of India and Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Khatri and Ors. 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 84, the Court held that selected candidate have right to appointment only against 'vacancies notified' and that too during the life of the select list as the panel of selected candidate cannot be valid of indefinite period. State of Haryana and Another, . 15. In Union of India and Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Khatri and Ors. 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 84, the Court held that selected candidate have right to appointment only against 'vacancies notified' and that too during the life of the select list as the panel of selected candidate cannot be valid of indefinite period. Moreover, impanelled ndidates "In any event cannot have a right against future vacancies." In State of Bihar and others Vs. The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others the Apex court held that " a person who is selected does not, on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment, and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rules say to the contrary." In the said case as the selection process was completed in five years after the publication of the advertisement, the contention was raised that the empanelled candidates deserved to be appointed over and above the vacancies notified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contention observing that keeping the selection process pending for long and not issuing any fresh advertisement in between, may not be justified but offering the posts in such a manner would adversely prejudice the cause of those candidates who achieved eligibility in the meantime. 16. In Surinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 18 , the Apex Court held as under: A waiting list, prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the persons from the waiting list may be pushed UP and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who became eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who became eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as infinite stock for appointment, there is danger that the State may resort to the device of not holding the examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The Constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetuating the waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service.... Exercise of such power has to be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness.... It is not a matter of course that the authority can fill up more posts than advertised. (Emphasis added) 17. In Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others the Apex Court similarly observed as under:- As per the scheme of the Act and the aforesaid provisions, for each academic year in question, the management has to intimate the existing vacancies and vacancies likely to be caused by the end of the ensuing academic year in question. Thereafter, the Director shall notify the same to the Commission and the Commission, in turn, will invite applications by giving wide publicity in the State of such vacancies. The vacancies cannot be filled except by following the procedure as contained therein. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 has incorporated in strong words that any appointment made in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be void. This was to ensure to back-door entry but selection only as provided under the said sections. (Emphasis added) 18. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sri Kant Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 237 ; and State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Others, . 19. This was to ensure to back-door entry but selection only as provided under the said sections. (Emphasis added) 18. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sri Kant Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 237 ; and State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Others, . 19. In view of the above, it is evident that a select list has a definite period of life and when all the appointments to the vacancies advertised are made and candidates who are offered the appointment join the service, the selection process stands exhausted and the select list/waiting list does not survive. In case a candidate who is above in the merit list is offered the appointment and he joins the post, the post stands filled up and in case he resigns or dies that vacancy cannot be filled up from the merit list/ waiting list and the proceeding for fresh selection has to be initiated. 20. The case of the Petitioner is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid legal proposition. Further the Petitioner has not disclosed as to when the alleged vacancy, against which he seeks appointment, occurred. Even if the vacancy occurred, no averment is made as to whether it could be offered to the category to which the Petitioner belongs. Further since the name of the Petitioner in the select list appear at SI No. 33 in the merit list, whether he could be offered appointment without making offer to the candidates above him in the merit list has also not been pleaded. There is no pleadings worth any consideration in respect of any of the aforesaid issues. 21. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh and Others Vs. 21. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ Petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the Respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing under the Code of CPC and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a writ petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to bepleaded and annexed to it. 22. Similar view has been reiterated in M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, ; National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan and Others, ; Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and Others, ; Smt. Chitra Kumari etc. Vs. Union of India and Others, ; and State of U.P. and Others Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey and Others Etc., . 23. In M/s. Atul Castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law. Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti and Anr. v. Prakash N. Rudrakar and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 18 ; Devasahayam (D) by LRs. Vs. P. Savithramma and Others, ; and Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Others, . 24. In such an eventuality as the Petitioner miserably failed to make any pleadings worth any consideration, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to consider the petition. 25. (2003) 1 SCC 18 ; Devasahayam (D) by LRs. Vs. P. Savithramma and Others, ; and Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Others, . 24. In such an eventuality as the Petitioner miserably failed to make any pleadings worth any consideration, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to consider the petition. 25. Further as the petition is pending for about last five years, it is desirable to deal with the case on merit. 26. In Dasarathi Behera and Ors. v. District Judge, Ganjam and Ors. 84 (1997) CLT 838, the Division-Bench of this Court held that select list once prepared has a life of one year. 27. The Division Bench of this Court in Sagarbala Mallick Vs. District Judge and Another considered the issue involved herein and came to the same conclusion that the life of the select list is only for a period of one year. 28. In case submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is accepted and if the waiting list is very long, it is clear that it will not be possible to fill up any future vacancies for a long period, which would amounts to filling up all the future vacancies treating the waiting list so prepared as a reservoir to fill up the vacancies whenever they occur in future. Such an interpretation would not only lead to absurdity but also would be violative of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. More so, the provision of Appendix 'A' of the Rules make it clear that the life of the select list is only for one year and the examination is to be held each year. 29. In such a fact-situation, the Petitioner cannot ask for any relief whatsoever. Petition is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed