Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—These intra-court appeals have been preferred assailing the legality of the order passed by the Single Bench disposing of the writ petitions subject to the rider that in case of availability of vacancies for the year 1998-99 for the post of Physical Training Instructor and in case any lesser meritorious candidate has been appointed, the petitioners be given appointment as Physical Training Instructor. 2. The facts in short are that an advertisement was issued on 27.8.1998 advertising 57 posts in different divisions of the State of Rajasthan. The present petitions pertain to Kota Division and Jaipur Division. For Kota division, 6 posts of PTI were advertised whereas for Jaipur, 14 posts were advertised. One post out of 6 at Kota was reserved for OBC candidate and out of 14 posts available for Jaipur, 8 posts were reserved for general category, 2 posts for SC, 1 post for ST and 2 posts were reserved for OBC candidates. One post was reserved for woman candidates. 3. The result was declared by the respondents and they ordered appointment of 61 persons whereas the advertised vacancies were 57, taking into consideration the vacancies to occur till February, 1999. However, they rejected the candidature of the candidates who were holding the degree in B..P.E. Consequently, before the Single Bench of this Court Hari Ram and 16 others preferred SBCWP 5125/99 which was allowed by the Single Bench vide order dated 21.5.1999. The Single Bench allowed the writ petition and directed to consider the cases of respondents in that case who were holding the decree in physical education from respective institutes and consider their applications and be given appointment if they otherwise, satisfied the other qualifications prescribed. Those incumbents were appointed pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this court. The order passed by the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Hari Ram & 16 Ors. (2001 (1) WLC (Raj.) 124 = RLW 2001(1) (Raj.) 406 ) was affirmed by the Apex Court on 23.2.2001 in SLP No. 2560/2001. Thereafter several writ petitions were filed and pursuant to directions issued by this court, 73 additional appointments have been made from time to time in different divisions whereas, vacancies advertised were only 57 as against which, 134 appointments have already been made by the respondents. 4. Thereafter several writ petitions were filed and pursuant to directions issued by this court, 73 additional appointments have been made from time to time in different divisions whereas, vacancies advertised were only 57 as against which, 134 appointments have already been made by the respondents. 4. List has been submitted by the State of Rajasthan of the incumbents copy of which has also been supplied to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants indicating that initially in Kota division as against 6 vacancies, 10 appointments were made. 6 candidates were of general category, 2 of OBC category, 1 of SC and 1 of ST category. Pursuant to directions issued by this court from time to time, 33 additional appointments have been made out of them, 19 candidates are of general category and 14 are of OBC category. 5. The appellants before us who are seeking appointment in Kota division are in SAW-167/07 Murli Manohar Gochar belongs to OBC category, in SAW 381/07 Durgesh Singh Khinchi belongs to general category, in SAW 0362/10 Hemant Vijay belongs to general category and in SAW 0362/10 Ram Bihari Yadav belongs to OBC category. Murli Manohar Gochar secured 100.93% in OBC category. Durgesh Singh Khinchi is having 98.25% in general category. Hemant Vijay is having 96.61% in general category and Ras Bihari Yadav secured 94.74% in OBC category. Whereas, 17 candidates who were having higher marks than Durgesh Singh Khinchi and Hemant Vijay in general category were not given appointment. In initial appointments also which were made excluding the qualification of BPE out of 6 incumbents, 3 incumbents were having higher marks than Durgesh Singh Khinchi and 5 candidates of general category were having higher marks than Hemant Vijay. 6. When we consider marks of OBC category to which the appellants of OBC category Murli Manohar Gochar and Ras Bihari Yadav having 100.93% and 94.74% marks respectively belong, we find that initially appointments were made of two incumbents who were lower in merit than Murli Manohar Gochar of OBC category whereas, as compared to Ras Bihari Yadav, one candidate was having higher marks and Kuldeep Giri was having lesser marks. However, under the courts direction, the appointments of 14 more incumbents of OBC category have been made our of them, four candidates were having higher marks as compared to marks of Murli Manohar Gochar. However, under the courts direction, the appointments of 14 more incumbents of OBC category have been made our of them, four candidates were having higher marks as compared to marks of Murli Manohar Gochar. The candidates who were having higher marks in OBC category are Ashok Kumar Rathore (106.9%),Badri Prasad Gurjar (104.74%), Narendra Singh Solanki (102.48%) and Kishan Bihari Goswami (101.19%). Another incumbent having equal marks to that of Murli Manohar Gochar, namely Jagdish Chand Balitwar has also been appointed. Whereas, as compared to Ras Bihari Yadav, we find that all 14 candidates who have been appointed under the courts order are higher in merit and their percentage ranging between 106.9 to 95.22% whereas Ras Bihari is having 94.74%. Thus, it is clear that as against three general category vacancies at Kota, 25 candidates have already been appointed out of them, 19 are under the courts order issued in various petitions and as against one post of OBC, 16 appointments have been made out of which, 14 by the court order. Thus, it is clear that as against one post which was advertised of OBC category, 5 candidates higher in merit than Murli Manohar Gochar have been appointed and 15 candidates higher in merit than Ras Bihari have been appointed. 7. When we note the facts with respect to Jaipur division, total number of posts advertised for Jaipur were 14 out of them, 8 were for general category, 2 for SC, 1 for ST and 2 for OBC and one for woman candidate. Initially, 16 incumbents were appointed out of whom, 10 were of general category, 2 of OBC, 2 SC and 2 ST category. The selection was made on the basis of exclusion of B.P.E. Qualification. In SAW-121/04, appellant Manoj Kumar of general category is having 100.38% marks, in SAW-1180/03 appellant Budh Singh Gurjar is having 93.22% marks in OBC category, in SAW 76/04 appellant Yashpal Singh is having 99.64% marks whereas, applications of Bahadur Singh, Mohan Singh, Narendra Singh and Virendra Kumar Jat were not received by the respondents, as per data furnished by the learned Additional Advocate General. In SAW-154/04, Ramanlal of general category is having 99.16% marks. In SAW-154/04, Ramanlal of general category is having 99.16% marks. Thus, we find that in Jaipur division, the appellants before us Manoj Kumar, Yashpal Singh and Ramanlal have obtained respectively 100.38%, 99.64%, 99.16% marks whereas, Budh Singh Gurjar has obtained 93.22% in OBC category and appellant Satish Chand Sharma in SAW-14/05 is having 96.20% marks in general category. 8. We find from the chart produced by the learned Additional Advocate General that out of 10 candidates who were appointed initially in Kota Division, 4 persons were higher in merit than Manoj Kumar, namely, Vinod Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Kuldeep Gour, Hari Singh and they were having marks between 105.69% to 100.61%. Similar was the situation with respect to Yashpal Singh in SAW-76/04 who was having 99.64% marks. With respect to Satish Chand Sharma, in the initial list, there were 5 candidates who were higher in merit. 9. When we come to the appointment which has been made in Jaipur division in general category, candidates pursuant to directions issued by this court from time to time, we find that 8 persons Santosh Kumar, Kamlesh Kumar, Navneet Kumar, Satyaveer Singh, Subh Karan Kharwal, Jaswant Kumar, Durga Prasad, Shiv Pal were having higher marks than Manoj Kumar. The marks of aforesaid persons were between 107.14% to 101.32%. Similar is the position with respect to Yashpal Singh in SAW-76/04 and Ramanlal in SAW 154/04. 10. It is apparent from the aforesaid figures that as against 8 posts of general category in Jaipur Division which were advertised, 12 persons who were higher in merit as compared to appellant Manoj Kumar have been given appointment and similar is the situation with respect to appellant Yashpal Singh whereas, 15 more persons higher in merit than Ramanlal have already been appointed whereas advertised vacancies for general category were only 8. 11. When we come to the OBC category, candidates of Jaipur Division, appellant Budh Singh Gurjar in SAW-1180/03 is having 93.22% whereas as against 2 posts of OBC category, which were advertised, two incumbents Nawab Ahmad (94.25%) and Naval Kishore Saini (93.22%) were already appointed initially by the respondents. 11. When we come to the OBC category, candidates of Jaipur Division, appellant Budh Singh Gurjar in SAW-1180/03 is having 93.22% whereas as against 2 posts of OBC category, which were advertised, two incumbents Nawab Ahmad (94.25%) and Naval Kishore Saini (93.22%) were already appointed initially by the respondents. Thereafter, pursuant to the courts directions, 15 more candidates higher in merit compared to appellant Budh Singh Gurjar have been appointed in OBC category itself, those 15 incumbents are Subhash Chand Saini, Subh Karan Singh, Kamlesh Kumari, Rajveer Singh, Satyaveer Sharma, Subhash Chand Swami, Bhulli Ram, Subh Ram Yadav, Suman Bai, Devendra Kumar, Syam Sunder Tailor, Lakhan Singh, Vaid Kour, Panna Lal Saini and Karan Singh having percentage between 106.12% to 94.96% and they were higher in merit as compared to percentage of Budh Singh Gurjar having 93.22% marks whereas posts advertised for OBC category were only two. 12. It is also pertinent to mention here that in Kota Division, when we consider merit lit of OBC and general category candidates, 25 candidates are having higher marks than 4 appellants of Kota division who are also holding B.P.E. Degree and have not been appointed whereas, in Jaipur division, there are 71 incumbents higher in merit of general and OBC categories as compared to the appellants of Jaipur division who are also holding the BPE qualification, have not been appointed. 13. The Single Bench in the instant case has ordered appointment to be made as per merit in case any lesser meritorious candidate has been appointed with the rider that the vacancies of the year 1998-99 exist as on the date of passing of the order, legality of which rider is a subject matter of challenge in the intra-court appeals. 14. Mr. Ashok Gaur, learned senior counsel with Mr. Ashvini Jaiman, Mr. Raj Deepak Rastogi learned counsel with Mr. N.S. Chauhan and Mr. Yogesh Pujari, Mr. Mahesh Gupta learned counsel with Mr. Akhilesh Pareek and Mr. Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have submitted that in the instant case, merit has not been followed. Lesser meritorious candidates as compared to the appellants, have been appointed. Exclusion of the candidates having B.P.E. Degree was found to be illegal by this court in the State of Raj. & Ors. vs. Hari Ram & 16 Ors. (supra). Lesser meritorious candidates as compared to the appellants, have been appointed. Exclusion of the candidates having B.P.E. Degree was found to be illegal by this court in the State of Raj. & Ors. vs. Hari Ram & 16 Ors. (supra). Learned counsel have also submitted that everybody is not supposed to come before the court when decision was rendered by this Court in State of Raj. & Ors. vs. Hari Ram & 16 Ors. (supra). Common merit list ought to have been drawn and the incumbents who were appointed earlier ought to have been removed and appointments ought to have been given to the persons in accordance with the merit. It is fit case in which State may be directed to create supernumerary posts to accommodate the appellants even if the vacancies of the year 1998-99 had been exhausted as on today. Shri Rastogi also submitted that admittedly, when the incumbents lower in merit than the appellants have been appointed, the appellants also have right to be appointed and it is their fundamental right vide Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel have also relied on various decisions. 15. Shri N.A. Naqvi, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that as compared to 6 vacancies of Kota division, 43 persons have already been appointed, out of them, 33 were appointed under the courts order whereas in Jaipur division, 52 incumbents have been appointed as against 14 posts which were advertised initially. 36 appointments have been made pursuant to the orders issued by this court from time to time. Even if merit list had been drawn of the candidates, none of the appellant would secure appointment in general or OBC category in Kota or in Jaipur. Initially, certain incumbents were appointed who were lesser in merit due to exclusion of BPE qualification and certain incumbents have been appointed under the courts order and due to contempt proceedings. It could not give any perennial right to the appellants, in absence of vacancies, to be appointed at any point of time. Validity of the list was to expire on 31.3.1999. The writ petitions have been preferred in the year 2001, 2002 and even thereafter. It could not give any perennial right to the appellants, in absence of vacancies, to be appointed at any point of time. Validity of the list was to expire on 31.3.1999. The writ petitions have been preferred in the year 2001, 2002 and even thereafter. Thus, when the vacancies have been exhausted and as large number of higher meritorious candidates than the appellants have been appointed considering the number of vacancies advertised merely by the fact that the court has not quashed the appointment order of the incumbents who were recruited initially in the case of State of Raj. & Ors. vs. Hari Ram & 16 Ors. (supra) and some of them were lower in merit we cannot order innumerable appointment in oblivion of number of vacancies advertised and they have not been impleaded as respondents, their appointment cannot be quashed in absence of impleadment. Thus, the appellants cannot claim unfettered right to be appointed in absence of vacancies for the year 1998-99 when higher meritorious candidates larger in number than vacancies advertised have been appointed. Other decisions have also been rendered by this Court to the same effect that only in case of existing vacancies considering the merit as against the vacancies which were advertised, appointments were ordered to be made. The appellants cannot claim right to appointed in absence of vacancies particularly when they have been filled up by the incumbents higher in merit than the appellants. 16. The main question for consideration is whether we can direct the appointments to be made dehors the vacancies of the year 1998-99. 17. It cannot be disputed that in Kota as well as in Jaipur exceeding the number of vacancies advertised and as compared to the merit of the appellants, the incumbents having higher merit have already been appointed. In Kota, total number of posts advertised were 6, whereas 10 appointments were initially made, i.e. 6 of general category, 2 of OBC category, 1 of SC and 1 of ST categories. Thereafter, on court's order, 19 appointments have been made of incumbents holding B.P.E. qualification. Three posts were advertised in general category whereas, 17 incumbents of general category having higher merit as compared to appellants Durgesh Singh Khinchi and Hemant Vijay of Kota division have already been appointed. Thereafter, on court's order, 19 appointments have been made of incumbents holding B.P.E. qualification. Three posts were advertised in general category whereas, 17 incumbents of general category having higher merit as compared to appellants Durgesh Singh Khinchi and Hemant Vijay of Kota division have already been appointed. Thus, in our opinion, merely by the fact that certain incumbents lower in merit as compared to them were appointed initially or pursuant to the courts order, cannot confer any right upon the appellants to be appointed as they do not stand in the merit of candidates who have secured higher marks than them. Even if merit list would have been drawn on inclusion of B.P.E. candidates like appellants, the appellants would not have obtained appointment even in general category nor their names could have been placed in select list. The incumbents initially appointed on exclusion of BPE qualification, who were lesser in merit, were not impleaded as party, their appointment had not been quashed at any point of time. Only one Nilesh Kumar Nama who was having lesser merit and has been appointed pursuant to the court's order, has been impleaded in petition out of which SAW No. 167/07 of Murli Manohar Gochar arises. 18. When we consider the candidates of OBC category of Kota Division, we find that 2 posts were advertised and as against those 2 posts, pursuant to the courts order, 4 candidates who were higher in merit as compared to the appellant Murli Manohar Gochar have been appointed and 16 candidates have been appointed who were higher in merit as compared to the marks of Ras Bihari Yadav. Even if the merit list would have been prepared of OBC for Kota, the aforesaid appellants Murli Manohar Gochar and Ras Bihari Yadav could not have secured appointment. Merely by the fact that one of the candidates appointed initially was having lesser marks than him would not come to his rescue. He has not been impleaded as respondent. 19. When we come to Jaipur division, similar is the position and none of the appellant of Jaipur division could have secured appointment or a place in merit list considering marks obtained by them. Appointments of 52 candidates have been ordered in Jaipur whereas, the posts advertised were only 14. He has not been impleaded as respondent. 19. When we come to Jaipur division, similar is the position and none of the appellant of Jaipur division could have secured appointment or a place in merit list considering marks obtained by them. Appointments of 52 candidates have been ordered in Jaipur whereas, the posts advertised were only 14. As compared to the number of vacancies advertised, persons exceeding in number having higher merit than the appellants have already been appointed in general as well as OBC category. No doubt about it that few incumbents having lesser merit also secured appointment initially when BPE candidates were excluded but, their appointments were not quashed by this court in State of Raj. & Ors. vs. Hari Ram & 16 Ors. (supra) and in other decisions. In none of the writ petition/appeal of Jaipur Division, the persons lesser in merit have been impleaded. Even if combined merit list had been drawn of these candidates of Jaipur, none of the appellants could have secured appointment as per their merit as compared to number of vacancies advertised. The fact also remains that there are still 71 persons though higher in merit than the appellants of Jaipur Division have not been appointed and 25 persons higher in merit of Kota Division as compared to merits of appellants of that Division have not been appointed. 20. The question arises for consideration is whether it is open to this court in the circumstances to issue directions to appoint incumbents larger than the number of vacancies advertised in the aforesaid circumstances when higher meritorious candidates than appellants have been appointed and whether due to appointment of some less meritorious candidates the appellants right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is violated and whether in view of non-appointment of large number of persons higher in merit than appellants they can claim right to be appointed. 21. So far as against 57 vacancies which were advertised in State of Rajasthan, total 134 appointments have been made out of which, 73 were pursuant to the courts order and 61 by respondents considering the vacancies of 1998-99. Most of them are higher in merit and some of them are lesser in merit than the appellants. 21. So far as against 57 vacancies which were advertised in State of Rajasthan, total 134 appointments have been made out of which, 73 were pursuant to the courts order and 61 by respondents considering the vacancies of 1998-99. Most of them are higher in merit and some of them are lesser in merit than the appellants. In the circumstances, when the vacancies advertised stand exhausted and incumbents exceeding twice a number of vacancies have already been appointed, in our opinion, we cannot stretch the matter so much to direct appointments of more than 120 candidates who have not been appointed in Kota and Jaipur divisions only. In our considered opinion, the right which can be claimed by the appellants is with respect to their merit position vis-a-vis to number of vacancies which were advertised and none of them has right to be appointed when common merit list/select list of the incumbents who had already been appointed is drawn. Excess number of persons higher in merit as compared to vacancies advertised have already been appointed and 71 persons higher in merits than appellants have not been appointed in Jaipur Division and 25 in Kota Division. We find that this court in State of Raj. & Ors. vs. Hari Ram & Ors. (supra) has not disturbed the appointments which were made of lesser meritorious candidates on exclusion of BPE candidates. The direction was confined by the Division Bench of this court for appointment of 17 respondents holding BPE qualification. There was no direction to draw general merit list. Even if common merit list is drawn, as apparent from data of persons appointed initially, by Court's interference and those who are left out, we find that these appellants of Kota and Jaipur would not have secured appointment/placement in select list as per their merits against the vacancies which were advertised and large number of other higher meritorious candidates than appellants have not been appointed. Thus, they cannot be ordered to be appointed by this Court. In the circumstances, the direction issued by Single Bench of this Court to appoint them in case vacancies of 1998-99 exist, is found to be fully in consonance with law. 22. In various decisions, the Apex Court has laid down that waiting list cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment for filling up vacancies not advertised. In Surinder Singh & Ors. 22. In various decisions, the Apex Court has laid down that waiting list cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment for filling up vacancies not advertised. In Surinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (1997) 8 SCC 488 ), the Apex Court laid down the aforesaid principle. In the instant case, appointments in excess over and above the vacancies advertised have already been made. In Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission vs. B. Swapna & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 154 ), the Supreme Court has laid down that the rank list cannot operate perennially. In Union of India & Ors. vs. B. Valluvan & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 686 ), the Supreme Court has laid down that period of operation of select list is fixed, generally for a period of one year. It can be extended only by the State and not by the court. The court cannot direct appointments to be made against future vacancies once the posts were filled by way of regular incumbents long back. In Jitendra Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 161 ), it has been laid down that excess appointments against advertised posts cannot be made in the context of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Service and Other Services Common/Combined Examination) Act, 2002. In Mukul Saikia & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 386 ), the Apex Court observed that excess candidates than the advertised posts have no legal right to be appointed. They cannot be appointed against further vacancies as against the posts which were not advertised and for which no selection process was undertaken. In Rakhi Ray & Ors. vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 637 ), the Apex Court has laid down that the process of selection comes to an end on filling up notified vacancies. Same view has been taken in Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 227 ). In Girdhar Kumar Dadhich & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 706 = 2009(3) RLW 2751 (SC)), a question came up for consideration whether the candidates who were not petitioners before the Full Bench could claim appointment on the strength of Supreme Court and High Court decisions. (2009) 3 SCC 227 ). In Girdhar Kumar Dadhich & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 706 = 2009(3) RLW 2751 (SC)), a question came up for consideration whether the candidates who were not petitioners before the Full Bench could claim appointment on the strength of Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Two such candidates who had filed writ petitions in High Court after the said Full Bench decision, their claim was found belated and the petitions were dismissed. 23. In the instant case, we find that the advertised vacancies stood exhausted by the time the petitions were filed. The petitioners waited till 2001-2002 and have filed petitions thereafter also. Delay also defeats their right and in none of the petitions, the incumbents who were appointed initially were added as respondents and no prayer was made to quash their appointments. Only in one of the petition, filed by Murli Manohar Gochar, one incumbent Nilesh Kumar Nama has been appointed under this court's order which order attained finality. Other candidates have also not been arrayed. Thus, we do not find that any relief can be given to the appellants in the instant matter due to aforesaid reasons. 24. Various decisions of Division Bench of this court in the same selection have been cited. One of such decision was rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Laxman Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 274/01) and two other appeals — SAW 492/01 and 699/01 decided by common order dated 16.8.2001 in which also the Division Bench of this Court has issued similar directions as passed by the Single Bench in the impugned order assailed in these appeals to appoint in case vacancies exist. The Division Bench in aforesaid common order dated 16.8.2001 has issued following directions:- "In view of the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Chandra Devi (supra), we are inclined to issue the directions to the respondent for considering the cases of the appointment for the post of PTI Grade-II and give them appointment, if they were otherwise found eligible for the appointment and vacancies still exist. We, however, made it clear that appellant shall be entitled for salary and seniority only from the date of their joining the post." 25. The decision of the Single Bench is in accordance with the aforesaid decision relied upon by the appellants. We, however, made it clear that appellant shall be entitled for salary and seniority only from the date of their joining the post." 25. The decision of the Single Bench is in accordance with the aforesaid decision relied upon by the appellants. Thus, we find no infirmity in the decision rendered by the Single Bench. Yet another decision has been relied upon rendered by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 722/07, State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Karan Singh decided on 21.5.2008 in which the Division Bench of this Court did not interfere in the order passed by the Single Bench. In the said case of Karan Singh, the Single Bench has directed on 5.9.2005 for consideration of the case in the light of decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Hari Ram & 16 Ors. (supra). The question of vacancies and number of appointments made was not raised neither decided in the aforesaid matter of Karan Singh nor question of overall merits was considered. In Kamlesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3421/05) decided on 12.1.2007, the Single Bench of this Court has issued direction to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment if it is found that the candidates lower in merit than him have been appointed. In that eventuality, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. The question of availability of vacancies was not raised nor, considered by the Single Bench. In the appeal preferred against the said decision of Single Bench in The State of Raj. & Ors. vs. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 1199/2007 decided vide order dated 13.3.2008, no interference was made by the Division Bench and the appeal was dismissed by short order and the aforesaid aspect of availability of vacancies was not raised neither considered by the Division Bench nor over all merits. In our considered opinion, the appellants cannot claim right to be appointed in view of delay and considering the fact that vacancies are not available and in excess the candidates higher in merit have already been appointed as compared to the number of vacancies available and large number of candidates higher in merits than appellants could not secure appointment. 26. In our considered opinion, the appellants cannot claim right to be appointed in view of delay and considering the fact that vacancies are not available and in excess the candidates higher in merit have already been appointed as compared to the number of vacancies available and large number of candidates higher in merits than appellants could not secure appointment. 26. No doubt it is true that each and every incumbent should not be made to rush to the court and once a decision has been rendered that should be applied to similary situated candidates. In the instant case, the facts indicate that B.P.E. qualification was initially excluded. In the State of Raj. & Ors. vs. Hari Ram & 16 Ors. this Court held that B.P.E. holders could also be appointed. However, no general direction was issued by this Court and the appointments which were made earlier were not quashed. The decision was confined to consideration of the case of the respondents before the Division Bench. Thus, in such eventuality, we cannot issue direction again and again to appoint hundreds of persons when the advertised vacancies are not at all available. Obviously, this court has to keep in view the number of vacancies which are available for which selection was made and the number of persons appointed. It is trite law that everybody need not to come in the court but, in the instant case, in the facts and circumstances, considering the number of vacancies, merit position of appellants, we cannot order for appointment to the appellants as that would be in violation of the aforesaid settled principle of law. No negative equality can be claimed by the appellants. They were not to be in the select list as already discussed by us as against the vacancies which were advertised. 27. Reliance has also been placed by the appellants on State of U.P. vs. Ram Swarup Saroj (2000) 3 SCC 699 ) in which life of the panel expired during pendency of the litigation. But, in the instant case, life of list had expired on 31.3.1999 itself. The decision was rendered by the Single Bench in 1999 and by the Division Bench on 13.9.2000. Thus, the appellants cannot claim any equitable relief. To the same effect law has been laid down by the Division Bench of this court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. But, in the instant case, life of list had expired on 31.3.1999 itself. The decision was rendered by the Single Bench in 1999 and by the Division Bench on 13.9.2000. Thus, the appellants cannot claim any equitable relief. To the same effect law has been laid down by the Division Bench of this court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Sujan Singh Khichi (2004(5) WLC (Raj.) 541). Reliance has also been placed by thee learned Addl. Advocate General on State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Harish Chandra & Ors. ( AIR 1996 SC 2173 ) in which life of the select list had expired long back and it was held by the Supreme Court that candidates claiming right to be appointed having no subsisting right on date of approaching High Court could not be appointed. In the said case, decision of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court. 28. Resultantly, we find that the decision of the Single Bench calls for no interference in the intra-court appeals. They are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Stay application also stand dismissed.