JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to Opposite Parties for appointment of the Petitioner in the post of Lecturer, Stenography & Secretarial Practice in Class II in Orissa Technical Education & Training Service (for short 'OTE & T') on the basis of the select list prepared by the Orissa Public Service Commission (for short 'OPSC') in the year 1989. 2. The facts & circumstances giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that during 1988 a requisition was made to the OPSC for recruitment to the post of Lecturers in Engineering Schools & Polytechnic in Class-II service vide Industries Department letter No. 11-110-16281 'dated 26.05.1988. In pursuance of an advertisement published by the OPSC, the petitioner along with others appeared at an interview conducted by the OPSC in the year 1989 for the said post. A select list was prepared on 25.07.1989 (Annexure-1) by the OPSC in which the name of one Ashok Kumar Rath was recommended for the said post. While doing so, a list of nine-eligible candidates under general category in order of merit was, also furnished by the OPSC to the Government as no SC & ST candidate was available. The case of the Petitioner is that since the said select list was not given effect to, one Chita Ranjan Mishra, who was continuing on ad hoc basis moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 827 of 1990 seeking for a direction to Opposite Parties for giving him regular appointment as per the select list prepared by the OPSC. The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal on 03.05.1994 directing the Opposite Parties to take a final decision to give regular appointment to the selected candidates in order of merit out of the select list prepared by the OPSC subject to availability of the vacancy. When this order of the Tribunal was not complied with, said Chita Ranjan Mishra moved the Tribunal in a Contempt Petition & the Tribunal vide its Order Dated 01.07.1996 directed the Government to give appointment to Sri Mishra. Such an order was passed on the-basis of the counter affidavit filed by the Government wherein it was disclosed that there were 3 vacancies available in general category. Such an order was passed on the-basis of the counter affidavit filed by the Government wherein it was disclosed that there were 3 vacancies available in general category. Since Petitioner's case was not considered in spite of several representations made to the Government, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3502(C) of 1997 for a direction to Opposite Parties to absorb him in the post of Lecturer on the basis of the select list prepared on 25.07.1989 by the OPSC. The Learned Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. filed by the Petitioner on two grounds, viz., (i) the petition was barred by limitation & (ii) the Petitioner had no right to claim appointment after expiry of validity of select list. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the delay in filing the original application was condonable as per the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court. After 1989, there has not been any further selection for the said post of Lecturer by the OPSC. It was further argued that the Government in its counter filed in O.A. No. 827 of 1990 categorically disclosed that there were three vacancies available in general category. Since Sri Chita Ranjan Mishra was at Sl. No. 3 of the select list, after his appointment the Petitioner automatically moved to Sl. No. 3 from Sl. No. 4 against remaining two vacancies meant for the general candidates. As Sri Bijay Kumar Sahoo, being at Sl. No. 2 was appointed as Lecturer in Government College & was not interested for the present post; one Smt. Kalpana Jena & the Petitioner were available to be absorbed in the remaining two vacancies as against the general category. The Opposite Parties instead of absorbing said Smt. Kalpana Jena & the Petitioner had continued with one Hrudananda Nayak on ad hoc basis in spite of the order of the Tribunal to give regular appointment to the selected candidates in order of merit as per the select list (Annexure-1). Mr. Sarangi, in support of his contention that, delay in filing the O.A. was condonable has relied on the following Judgments of the Apex Court, (i) S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, ; (ii) State of Karnataka and Others Vs. C. Lalitha, ; & (iii) K.C. Sharma and others Vs. Union of India and others, . 4. Mr. Sarangi, in support of his contention that, delay in filing the O.A. was condonable has relied on the following Judgments of the Apex Court, (i) S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, ; (ii) State of Karnataka and Others Vs. C. Lalitha, ; & (iii) K.C. Sharma and others Vs. Union of India and others, . 4. Per contra, Mr. Trilochan Rath, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State, submitted that a requisition for recruitment of sixtyone posts of Lecturers in different disciplines including two posts of lecturers in Stenography & Secretarial practice (for short 'SSP') was made to the OPSC. Out of these two posts of lecturers in SSP, one post was meant for general & the other for ST candidates. The OPSC after due selection had recommended the name of Sri Ashok Kumar Rath for appointment as Lecturer against the lone general vacancy & said Sri Rath had been appointed as such. Further, the OPSC had recommended the names of nine general candidates against reserved vacancy meant for ST candidates vide Annexure-2 to the counter as no SC/ST candidate was available. Since there was only one post for general candidate & the Petitioner's name found place at Sl. No. 4, there was no occasion to appoint him against that particular post in which Sri Rath was absorbed. Moreover, the panel was valid for one year as per the OTE & T Service Rules, 1985. Sri Chita Ranjan Mishra was working as Lecturer on ad hoc basis before the said requisition was made to the OPSC. After receipt of the recommendation of the OPSC, the Government retrenched Sri Mishra as his position was at Sl. No. 3 in the panel of names recommended by the OPSC. Sri Mishra filed O.A. No. 827 of 1990 before the Tribunal & by virtue of the stay order Sri Mishra continued in service. The Tribunal vide its Orders Dated 01.07.1996 & 07.04.1997 had directed the Government to appoint Sri Mishra who during the relevant time was continuing on ad hoc basis against one general vacancy as at that point of time there were three vacancies available. The Government appointed him against such vacancies only as per direction of the Tribunal. Thus, the case of Sri Mishra was all together different. The Government appointed him against such vacancies only as per direction of the Tribunal. Thus, the case of Sri Mishra was all together different. But, the Petitioner after coming to know of the case of Sri Mishra, filed O.A. No. 3502(C) of 1997 after lapse of eight years from the date of recommendation of the OPSC &, therefore, the application was barred by limitation. The recommendation of the OPSC was valid for a period of one year as per Rule 14 of the OTE & T Service Rules & after expiry of the said period the Petitioner cannot claim for such appointment. In support of his contention, Sri Rath, Learned Counsel for the State relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Another Vs. Jaswant Singh and Another, . 5. We have considered the rival contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the parties & perused the record. 6. Now the questions that fall for consideration by this Court are: (i) Whether the Petitioner, at a belated stage, can claim the benefit of relief taken by some diligent person from the Tribunal by filing an Original Application immediately after the cause of action arose? (ii) Whether any appointment can be made from the select list which has lost its validity? 7. The facts which are not in dispute are that from Annexure-1 attached to the counter affidavit it appears that requisition was made to the OPSC for recruitment of two posts of Lecturers in SSP out of which one post was meant for general candidate & the other for ST candidate. Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition reveals that the OPSC had recommended # the name of one Sri Ashok Kumar Rath for appointment as Lecturer in SSP against the lone general vacancy & he had been appointed as such. Further the OPSC had recommended the name of nine general candidates against the reserved vacancies meant for ST candidates as no ST candidate was available. Since during the relevant time one post was available against general category, Sri Ashok Kumar Rath had been absorbed in the said post. Subsequently, Sri Chita Ranjan Mishra who was working on ad hoc basis was absorbed by virtue of order of the Tribunal. Only after Sri Mishra whose name finds place in the select list prepared by the OPSC against Sl. Subsequently, Sri Chita Ranjan Mishra who was working on ad hoc basis was absorbed by virtue of order of the Tribunal. Only after Sri Mishra whose name finds place in the select list prepared by the OPSC against Sl. No. 3 was absorbed by the Opposite Parties pursuant to order of the Tribunal, the Petitioner filed O.A. No. 3502(C) of 1997 claiming his appointment. 8. So far as the first question is concerned, law is well settled that in case some person has taken certain relief from the Court by filing a Writ Petition immediately after the cause of action arose, no other person can take benefit thereof by filing a Writ Petition at a belated stage. This is so, because the other person cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order so passed at the behest of a diligent person. In Rup Diamonds and Others Vs. Union of India and Others the Apex Court rejecting the Petitioner's claim to get the relief on the basis of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires held as under: ...there is one more ground which basically sets the present case apart. Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not pursued for several/ears. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant & chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided. In Jagdish Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others the Apex Court held as under: Suffice it to state that appellants may be sleeping over their rights for long & elected to wake-up when they had impetus from Veerpal Chauhan & Ajit Sing's ratio...desperate attempts of the appellants to redo the seniority, had by them in various cadres... are not amenable to judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of delay as well. The Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Others Vs. C. Lalitha, held that a petition should not be considered ignoring the delay & laches on the ground that the petition is filed just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay & laches. The Apex Court in Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Another Vs. The Apex Court in Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Another Vs. Jaswant Singh and Another, has held as under: In view of the statement of law as summarized above, the Respondents are guilty since the Respondents has acquiesced in accepting the retirement & did not challenge the same in time. If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or while away & did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the Court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent.... 9. In the case at hand, the Petitioner only after coming to know about the case of Sri Chita Ranjan Mishra filed O.A. No. 3502(C)/1997 before the Tribunal, which was after a lapse of eight years from the date of recommendation of the OPSC. In view of the above stated legal propositions, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly refused to entertain the O.A. filed by the Petitioner on the ground of limitation. 10. The second question rebates to a candidate's entitlement to claim for appointment after expiry of the period of validity of the select list. In this context, it would be useful to refer to some of the Judgments of the Apex Court as well as our own High Court. In Union of India and Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Khatri and Ors. 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 84, the Court held that selected candidates have right to appointment only against 'vacancies notified' & that too during the life of the select list as the panel of selected candidate cannot be valid of indefinite period. Moreover, impaneled candidates "in any event cannot have a right against future vacancies." The Apex Court in J. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of A.P. and Others, held 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. In State of Punjab Vs. Moreover, impaneled candidates "in any event cannot have a right against future vacancies." The Apex Court in J. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of A.P. and Others, held 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. In State of Punjab Vs. Raghbir Chand Sharma and Another the Apex Court held as under: With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made & select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist & has outlived its utility &, at any rate, no one else in the panel can be 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. 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. The Division Bench of this Court in Sagarbala Mallick Vs. District Judge and Another considered the issue involved herein & came to the same conclusion that the life of the select list is only for a period of one year. 11. The submission of Mr. Rath, Learned Counsel for the State, that the panel was valid for a period of one year only as per Section 14 of the GTE & T Service Rules, 1985 has not been controverted by Mr. Sarangi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. For better appreciation, Rule 14 of the GTE & T. Service Rules is quoted below: 14. Period of Validity of recommendation of the Commission - The list of names recommended by the Commission shall remain in force for one year from the date of such recommendation. Thus, validity of a select list has a particular time limit &, when all the appointments to the vacancies advertised are filled up, the selection process stands exhausted & the select list no longer survives. Moreover, as per Rule 14 of the GTE & T Service Rules, the select list prepared by the Commissioner is valid for a period of one year only from the date of recommendation. Therefore, no candidate can claim appointment after expiry of the validity of a select list. 12. Moreover, as per Rule 14 of the GTE & T Service Rules, the select list prepared by the Commissioner is valid for a period of one year only from the date of recommendation. Therefore, no candidate can claim appointment after expiry of the validity of a select list. 12. In the present case, after appointment of Sri Ashok Kumar Rath against the one general vacancy the select list (Annexure 1) lost its validity & hence the Petitioner cannot claim any appointment on the basis of said invalid select list against future vacancies. 13. Moreover, law is also well settled that mere appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not confer on him any right for appointment. 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 unfulfilled. The candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been given a hostile discrimination. In State of Bihar and others Vs. The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others the Apex Court held as under: ...a person who is selected does not, orvaccount of being empaneled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment, & by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rules say to the contrary. 14. The ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court in S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, is of no help to the Petitioner as the facts of both the cases are completely different. In that case the question before the Apex Court was as to when a right to sue first accrues in case of Government servant. 14. The ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court in S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, is of no help to the Petitioner as the facts of both the cases are completely different. In that case the question before the Apex Court was as to when a right to sue first accrues in case of Government servant. Analyzing various provisions of the Limitation Act (Act 36 of 1963) & Administrative Tribunal Act (Act 13 of 1985) the Apex Court held as follows: We are of the view that the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made & where no such order is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months' period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen. We, however, make it clear that this principle may not be applicable when the remedy availed of has not been provided by law. Repeated unsuccessful representations not provided by law are not governed by this principle. Thus, the principle decided above is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner. In C. Lalitha case (supra) the Apex Court held that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. They should not be treated differently because one person has approached the Court. The principle decided in this case is also of no help to the Petitioner, as the Petitioner is not similarly situated to that of Sri Chita Ranjan Mishra. As stated above, Sri Mishra was serving in the said post on ad hoc basis. Only after receipt of the recommendation of the OPSC the Government have retrenched Sri Mishra as his position was at Sl. No. 3 of the panel of names recommended by OPSC & there was no equal number of post to accommodate the candidate up to Sl. No. 3. Sri Mishra filed O.A. No. 827/ 1990 in the Tribunal & by virtue of stay order Sri Mishra continued in service. No. 3 of the panel of names recommended by OPSC & there was no equal number of post to accommodate the candidate up to Sl. No. 3. Sri Mishra filed O.A. No. 827/ 1990 in the Tribunal & by virtue of stay order Sri Mishra continued in service. The Tribunal vide Orders Dated 01.07.1996 & 07.04.1997 had directed to appoint Sri Mishra against one general vacancy as at that point of time there were three vacancies. Thus, the case of Sri Mishra is all together different from that of the Petitioner. Moreover, in view of the settled legal propositions as indicated above on the point of limitation & the candidate's right to be appointed after expiry of the validity of the select list & appearance of the name of the candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment, the present petition merits no consideration. Similarly, the decision of the Apex Court in K.C. Sharma's case (supra) has no application to the case of the Petitioner, as the facts of both the cases are different as indicated in the order of the Tribunal. 15. In such fact situation, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the Writ Petition, which is dismissed. No order as to costs. L. Mohapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed