Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash advertisement dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P-5), published in newspaper Jag Bani, and other such advertisements published in other newspapers, whereby the respondents have invited fresh applications for direct recruitment, for the posts of Clerks, Junior Scale Stenographers and Steno Typists in Punjab Civil Secretariat and Excise and Taxation Department. The petitioners further pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to publish the result of the test conducted in the year 2007, for selection to the above mentioned posts, by way of transfer. 2. In brief, the case set up by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under Rule 6(1)(c)(ii) of the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department, Subordinate Offices (Ministerial) Class III service Rules, 1964 (for short the Rules), the posts at issue could be filled up by transfer of an official already in service of Government of India or of a State Government, amongst other modes. The petitioners were already serving the State of Punjab in different departments. Applications were invited for appointment by way of transfer. The petitioners, after clearing the required examination, had qualified and the names of the petitioners were shortlisted for appointment. Appointment letters, however, were not issued. Petitioner No. 1-Lalit Kumat approached this Court by way of filing CWP 8229 of 2009, Lalit Kumar v. State of Punjab and others which, however, was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner No. 1 to file a petition at an appropriate time when the cause of action arises. The order reads in the following terms:- "Learned counsel contends that certain posts of Clerk were to be filled from amongst the employees. The petitioner took the test of English and Punjabi for the said purpose on 25.09.2007. Result was declared. Subsequently, Computer test was held on 16.11.2007 in which the petitioner participated. Learned counsel has not denied the fact that no selection has been made till date. Learned counsel has not been able to show that any cause of action arises as today. Learned counsel wants to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a petition at appropriate time when cause of action arise. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for." 3. Learned counsel has not been able to show that any cause of action arises as today. Learned counsel wants to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a petition at appropriate time when cause of action arise. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that at the point in time when the petition was heard, the petitioners did not know that the selection had been made. A perusal of letter dated 24.3.2008 (Annexure P-7) indicates that, indeed, the selection process had been completed. 4. Vide impugned advertisement No. 2 of 2010 (Annexure P-5), the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab, has invited applications for recruitment to the posts by way of direct appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the selection process had been concluded in the year 2007, the petitioners would have a right to be appointed. The respondents are estopped by their conduct in giving a fresh advertisement for selection by way of direct recruitment. 5. I have considered the issue. 6. In nutshell, the petitioners seek directions to the respondents to fill the posts by way of transfer of officials already in service of the State Government. The process of selection undertaken in 2007 did not culminate in appointment of any person. After 3 years, now, the respondents, in their wisdom, have issued an advertisement for selection by way of direct appointment through the Subordinate Services Selection Board. Relevant rule i.e. Rule 6 of the Rules, reads as under :- "6.(1) Posts in the Service shall be filled in the following manner :- xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (c) In the case of Stenographers - (i) by promotion from amongst Clerks in he offices of Commissioner, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioners and Excise and Taxation Officers; or (ii) by transfer of an official already in the service of Government of India or of a State Government; or (iii) by direct appointment through the Board. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (2) When any vacancy occurs or is about to occur in the Service, the appointing authority shall decide the manner in which the same shall be filled in. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 7. The selection made in 2007 does not entrust any right in the petitioners to appointment as appointment letters were not issued. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 7. The selection made in 2007 does not entrust any right in the petitioners to appointment as appointment letters were not issued. It is the discretion of the respondents to fill the vacancies by a particular mode. The mode being adopted by the respondents is in conformity with Rule 6 (1)(c)(iii) of the Rules, as extracted above. After 3 years of the earlier selection, the petitioners have no right to seek appointment under the selection list prepared at that point in time. It is an administrative exercise to be carried by the respondent-authorities. The court is not required to substitute its own opinion so as to direct the respondents to adopt a particular means of appointment. The action of the respondents, in the circumstances, does riot call for judicial review of the administrative action taken by the respondents. No ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.