JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioners before this Court are members of Other Backward Class Category, they seek quashing of the Government Order dated 11.12.2008, and a writ of mandamus commanding the State respondents to admit the petitioners, and similarly situate candidates within the approved seats to BTC Training Course, 2007 as per the permission granted by the National Council for Teachers Education (in short “NCTE”) vide its letter dated 27.6.2007. 2. I have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava on behalf of the petitioners and Shri K.S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Parties have exchanged their affidavits. Both the writ petitions are being finally disposed of by this common order. The facts in short for examining the controversy raised are as follows : 4. The State Government made an application to the NCTE for permission being granted for conducting Special BTC Training Course, 2007 in respect of 60,000 seats, for candidates possessed of a degree of B. Ed., for appointment as Assistant Teachers in primary institutions run by Basic Shiksha Parishad U.P., appointment whereof is regulated by the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rule, 1981. The NCTE vide its letter dated 27.6.2007 granted permission to the State Government for Special B.T.C. Training of 60,000 students through various District Institute of Education and Training (in short ‘DIET’) of U.P. The course was to be known as Special BTC Training Course, 2007. In pursuance to the aforesaid permission granted by the NCTE, a Government Order was also issued on 10.7.2007 providing therein that 60,000 candidates will be admitted to Special BTC Training Course, 2007 in various District Institute of Education and Training. Applications were to be invited from the candidates who possessed B. Ed. Degree from recognized Universities. Against the aforesaid 60,000 seats reservation was also provided, which was to be calculated district-wise. Accordingly, advertisement was published by various Principals of DIET for admission of requisite number of students to the said Special BTC, Training Course 2007, the course was of a duration of six months only. 5. It may be recorded that although in the advertisement published, candidates with a degree of B. Ed. alone were eligible to apply but because of intervention of the High Court, candidates with degrees of C.P. Ed. and B.P. Ed. etc. were also held entitled to apply in response to the advertisement published. 5. It may be recorded that although in the advertisement published, candidates with a degree of B. Ed. alone were eligible to apply but because of intervention of the High Court, candidates with degrees of C.P. Ed. and B.P. Ed. etc. were also held entitled to apply in response to the advertisement published. 6. The petitioners before this Court who are members of other backward categories are stated to have made their applications in response to the advertisement so published. Application received were processed and after allotting quality point marks to the applicant the Principal published the cut of marks qua the categories concerned, calling upon the candidates to appear before the District Institute of Education & Training with their original testimonials and other academic qualifications as well as other certificates claiming reservation, weightage, etc. for counselling/verification. 7. It appears that after first round of counselling, requisite number of students could not be selected for admission within the category concerned, therefore, fresh advertisement was published inviting applications after lowering the cut-off-marks. Such counselling was repeated for seven rounds still some seats remained vacant. 8. The State Government by means of the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 has decided to stop the process of admission to Special BTC Training Course, 2007. A fresh advertisement has been published on 18.12.2008 inviting applications for Special BTC Course, 2008 as against 28,385 seats. It is these actions of the State which are under challenge in these petitions. 9. The State Government in fact forwarded a request to the NCTE for permission being granted for admission of additional 28385 students to Special BTC Training Course, in view of the orders of this Court permitting the C.P. Ed. and B.P. Ed. candidates to be admitted to Special BTC Training Course-2007. Permission applied for by the State Government was granted by the NCTE vide its letter dated 27.6.2007. However, the State Government has taken a decision to fill 28,385 seats by way of Special BTC Course-2008 and for the purposes advertisement, as stated above, has been published. 10. and B.P. Ed. candidates to be admitted to Special BTC Training Course-2007. Permission applied for by the State Government was granted by the NCTE vide its letter dated 27.6.2007. However, the State Government has taken a decision to fill 28,385 seats by way of Special BTC Course-2008 and for the purposes advertisement, as stated above, has been published. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere inviting of applications for Special BTC Training Course-2008, which is with regard to additional intake of students permitted by the NCTE as per letter dated 27.06.2007, cannot be the basis for arresting the process of admission to Special BTC Training Course-2007 till the requisite number of seats earlier sanctioned by NCTE i.e. 60,000 are filled specifically when requirement of Assistant Teachers in the Parishadiya Vidyalaya still subsists. It is contended that though the selected candidates may not have any right to claim appointment yet the decision of the State Government to arrest the process of selection for admission before the requisite number of candidates are admitted must be based on some rationale inasmuch as every act of the State Government has to be justified on reasons. 11. The contention so raised by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel is opposed by Shri K.S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel and it is contended that the State Government has made repeated attempts to fill all the sanctioned number of seats i.e. 60,000 for Special BTC Training Course-2007 and for that purposes seven rounds of counselling has been done. The process cannot be continued for an indefinite period. The State Government in its wisdom has decided that since the process for admission to Special BTC Course-2008 has been initiated, the earlier process be discontinued. He submits that candidates are at liberty to apply in response to the advertisement published on 18.12.2008. The justification for stopping the process of admission as disclosed on behalf of the State-Respondents is that even after seven rounds of counselling requisite number of students within the category could not be admitted. The State Government has arrived at a decision to close the admissions to Special BTC Training Course-2007 and to initiate a fresh process for such admission to Special BTC Training Course- 2008. Under the fresh advertisement of 2008 new candidates, who are now eligible and within the zone of consideration can also apply. The State Government has arrived at a decision to close the admissions to Special BTC Training Course-2007 and to initiate a fresh process for such admission to Special BTC Training Course- 2008. Under the fresh advertisement of 2008 new candidates, who are now eligible and within the zone of consideration can also apply. He submitted that the petitioners have no right to claim that the process of admission initiated for 60,000 seats under Special BTC Training Course-2007 must be continued, till the entire 60,000 seats are filled. He submits that process of admission can be closed by the State Government at any point of time for valid good reasons and there is no obligation under law to fill in all the advertised seats. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in 1973 AIR (SC) 2216, State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha; (2006) 3 SCC 330 ; State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others and (2008) 7 SCC 153 ; Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others. It is emphasized that no candidate has a right to claim that the advertised posts should be filled in their entirety. The decision to arrest the process of selection/appointment even before the entire advertised seats are filled cannot be objected to nor can be questioned. No mandamus as prayed for is required to be issued. 12. In the Rejoinder affidavit Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate contended that competence of the State Government to arrest the process of selection and to keep the seats vacant is not in dispute. He submits that such decision has to be arrived at on certain relevant considerations and not on mere whims and fancies. He impressed that vacancies on the post of primary teachers in Parshadiya Vidhyalaya still exists and need of qualified teachers for such primary education is subsisting. It is of no consequence as to whether the counselling has taken place for number of times. He submits that the advertisement which has been published in the year 2008 is with reference to the vacancies other than 60,000 seats which were earlier permitted by NCTE as would be apparent from the permission granted under the letter of NCTE dated 27.06.2007, i.e. for additional 28385 seats vis-a-vis the number of vacancies now have been advertised with reference to the Government Order dated 18.12.2008. He submits that vacancies within 60,000 seats permitted by the NTCE for Special BTC Training Course-2007 are not the subject matter of consideration for admission to Special BTC Training Course-2008 and the stand taken to the contrary in the counter affidavit is incorrect. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 14. It is no doubt true that the State Government had obtained permission from the NCTE for admission of candidates for Special B.T.C. Training as against 60000 seats and accordingly a Government Order dated 10.7.2007 was issued for admission against 60000 seats of Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. Candidates who had a degree of B. Ed. were entitled to apply. The petitioners made their applications accordingly. 15. In between the High Court issued various orders directing that the candidates who have obtained degree of C.P. Ed., B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed are also entitled to be considered for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. The State Government, therefore, made an application before the NCTE for grant of permission for additional intake of 28385 students in Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. This permission was granted by the NCTE in September, 2007 and therefore the total number of intake permitted by the NCTE for Special B.T.C. Training stood revised as 88385 seats. 16. The State instead of filling these 28385 vacancies, additional intake whereof was permitted by the NCTE under Special B.T.C. Training Course- 2007, decided to fill the same by issuing Government Order dated 14.11.2008 through a new training course, known as Special B.T.C. Course-2008 and Special B.T.C. Course-2008 (Special Selection) for reserved category of candidates. 17. The decision of the State Government to hold fresh selection in respect of 28385 seats under the permission granted by the NCTE in September, 2007 cannot be faulted nor the petitioners have any right to question the same. As a matter of fact they have not challenged the said decision. The petitioners only object to the Government Order dated 14.11.2008, whereby admission to B.T.C. Training Course-2007 has been closed and in that regard they have prayed for a mandamus commanding the State Government to continue the process of selection in respect of Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007 till all 60000 seats, qua which the permission has been granted by the NCTE and qua which Government Order dated 10.07.2007 has been issued, are filled. 18. 18. It will not be out of place to mention here that the State Government after making the advertisement for filling the 60000 seats of B.T.C. Training Course-2007 and, after processing the application received, in fact issued seven lists from time to time. Each list had been issued after lowering of the cut of merits qua the candidates entitled for admission. In every list candidates ten times the number of vacancies left were invited for counselling. Even after such long drawn process adopted by the State Government, the entire 60000 seats could not be filled and more than one year elapsed in between. 19. It has to be kept in mind that Special B.T.C. Training Course is of a duration of six months only and the process of admission to Special B.T.C. Training Course cannot be continued for indefinite period nor any candidates has a right to insist upon the State Government to keep on publishing list after list after lowering the merit for admission to a particular Special B.T.C. Training Course till all the vacancies are filled. The admission process initiated has to be brought at an end at some point of time. It cannot be an indefinite process of selection/admission to the course. The State Government in its wisdom, having regard to the number of list published from time to time (seven in number) for admission to Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007, each time after lowering the merit, and having regard to the publication of the fresh advertisement for Special B.T.C. Course-2008, has decided to close the admission to the Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. Such exercise of discretion by the State Government cannot be termed to be contrary to law/arbitrary nor there can be any interference by this Court in the exercise of such discretion of the State Government to close admission to Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007. The Standing Counsel is justified in referring to the judgment in the case of 1973 AIR (SC) 2216 (State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha), wherein in paragraph 9 it has been held as follows : “9. It must be remembered that the petition is for a mandamus. This Court has pointed out in Dr. The Standing Counsel is justified in referring to the judgment in the case of 1973 AIR (SC) 2216 (State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha), wherein in paragraph 9 it has been held as follows : “9. It must be remembered that the petition is for a mandamus. This Court has pointed out in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, 1982 (2) Supp SCR 144 : AIR 1962 SC 1210 , that in order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Since there is no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15 persons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under the rules to enforce its performance the petition is clearly misconceived.” 20. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others, (2006) 3 SCC 330 , wherein it has been held that mere inclusion in the select list, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled, confers no right to claim appointment. 21. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no good ground either to quash the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 or to issue the mandamus as has been prayed for. 22. Writ petitions are dismissed. ————