JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, C.J. This order will dispose of Writ Appeal Nos. 220/2010, 155/ 2010, 395/2009, 396/2009 and 221/2010. 1. All these writ appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) Nos. 6198/2007, 6205/ 2007 and 4589/2008. The relevant facts of the case may be briefly noted. 2. An advertisement was issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) on 23.7.2002 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for 3 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI). After conducting selection etc., a select list was published by the APSC on 21.5.2004. As against 3 posts advertised, the select list contained names of as many as 19 candidates and there was mention of 7 vacancies as against 3 posts advertised. 3. Name of Sri Sanjib Kumar Chutia, an MOBC candidate appeared at Sl. No. 3 in the select list whereas name of Sri Dilip Kumar Baishya, a Scheduled Caste candidate appeared at Sl. No. 12. Though they were recommended by the APSC, the Government in the Transport Department took the view that the Diploma possessed by the said 2 candidates was not as per the prescribed qualification in the advertisement. They were, therefore, denied appointments. Aggrieved, Sri Sanjib Kumar Chutia filed W.P. (C). No. 6186/2007 while Sri Dilip Kumar Baishya filed W.P. (C). No. 6205/2007 seeking direction for their appointments as MVI. Status quo order was passed by this Court on 05.12.2007 followed by further interim orders dated 10.12.2007 and 23.1.2008 whereby it was provided that no appointment to any vacant post of MVI should be made from the select list in question, in terms of which no appointment could be made by the State Respondents. 4. The 5 petitioners in W.P. (C). No. 4589/2008 whose names figured at Sl. Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 in the select list were appointed as MVI on 25.3.2008. By subsequent Government order dated 23.10.2008, their appointments were cancelled. The 5 petitioners not only challenged their cancellation order dated 23.10.2008 but also questioned the qualification and eligibility of the 2 candidates who were petitioners in W.P. (C). Nos. 6186/2007 and 6205/2007. 5. While proceeding with W.P. (C). No. 4589/2008, learned Single Judge noticed that as against the 3 posts advertised, the Transport Department had appointed 15 persons from the select list up to Sl. No. 17 (excluding candidates at Sl. Nos. Nos. 6186/2007 and 6205/2007. 5. While proceeding with W.P. (C). No. 4589/2008, learned Single Judge noticed that as against the 3 posts advertised, the Transport Department had appointed 15 persons from the select list up to Sl. No. 17 (excluding candidates at Sl. Nos. 3 and 12, who, thereafter filed the aforesaid 2 writ petitions). Learned Single Judge by order dated 26.11.2008 noted that though the advertisement was for 3 posts, the APSC's recommendation was for 7 posts. Further, the Transport Department made appointments even beyond those 7 posts. Learned Single Judge also sought for explanation as to how appointments could be made on 25.3.2008 when stay orders passed by this Court were holding the field. 6. Thereafter, the Transport Department apprised the Court by way of an affidavit that though vacancies notified in the advertisement was only 3, later on due to increase in the number of vacancies by 4 (total 7), Government requested the APSC to recommend suitable candidates against 7 posts vide letter dated 4.11.2003. As per the said affidavit, the select list published was extended from time to time and further vacancies that arose were also filled up therefrom. 7. Learned Single Judge noticed that pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.7.2002 for 3 posts, written test was held on 21.9.2003. The subsequent request of the government for additional 4 posts was made after the selection process was set in motion. 8. As appointments were made beyond the advertised vacancies, the appointed candidates were put on notice to justify their appointments. All the appointed candidates appeared and contested the proceeding. 9. Coming to the 5 petitioners in W.P. (C). No. 4589/2008, learned Single Judge noted that their merit position in the select list was at Sl. Nos. 13 to 17 which were way below the advertised vacancies. Their appointments were interfered with by the learned Single Judge on two grounds. Firstly, their merit position in the select list did not justify their appointments against 3 vacancies or even against the 7 vacancies, which were subsequently decided to be filled up from the said select list. Secondly, when the stay orders passed in W.P. (C). Nos. 6186/2007 and 6205/2007 were in force, the authority could not have issued the appointment orders. Learned Single Judge did not find any good ground to interfere with the government order dated 23.10.2008 cancelling the appointments of the petitioners. Secondly, when the stay orders passed in W.P. (C). Nos. 6186/2007 and 6205/2007 were in force, the authority could not have issued the appointment orders. Learned Single Judge did not find any good ground to interfere with the government order dated 23.10.2008 cancelling the appointments of the petitioners. Following the same, W.P. (C). No. 4589/2008 was dismissed. 10. Coming to W.P. (C). Nos. 6186/2007 and 6025/2007, in so far the grievance of the writ petitioners regarding non recognition of their qualification for the post of MVI and consequential denial of appointment is concerned, learned Single Judge held that the particular diploma obtained by the petitioners conformed to the requirement of the educational qualification laid down in the advertisement and, therefore, their recommendation by the APSC could not have been brushed aside by the Transport Department on the ground that their qualification was incompatible with the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. 11. Further, noticing the discrepancy in the selection process, learned Single Judge held that appointments beyond the advertised vacancies or at least the 7 vacancies must be held to be illegal. 12. Writ Appeal No. 220/2010 has been filed by the State contending that the appointments that were made by the State were made in view of the sudden necessity and those were not made in a routine manner. It was also urged that the direction given to treat the qualification of the petitioners of W.P. (C). Nos. 6186/2007 and 6205/2007 to be in conformity with the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, would amount to diluting the eligibility conditions laid down in the advertisement. The other writ appeals have been filed by the petitioners of W.P. (C). No. 4589/2008 and by the candidates whose appointments have been declared to be illegal by the learned Single Judge. 13. We have heard Mr. U. Rajbongshi, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department for the appellants in W.A. No. 220/2010 and Mr. AM Bujarbaruah, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. Nos. 155/2010, 396/2009 and 221/2010. We have also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the appellants in W.A. No. 395/2009, Mr. C. Baruah, learned SC, APSC and Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 14. Coming first to the issue relating to the qualification of the petitioners in W.P. (C). Nos. 155/2010, 396/2009 and 221/2010. We have also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the appellants in W.A. No. 395/2009, Mr. C. Baruah, learned SC, APSC and Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 14. Coming first to the issue relating to the qualification of the petitioners in W.P. (C). Nos. 6186/2007 and 6205/2007, it is seen that the educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated 23.7.2002 was Higher Secondary passed with Diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering from a recognized institution (3 years diploma course) of Govt. of India or Govt. of Assam. Both the petitioners are retired Air Force personnel and both of them are graduates. They had possessed the Trade of Mechanical Transport Fitter from the Mechanical Transport Training Institute, Indian Air Force. The Indian Air Force recognizes the Trade of Mechanical Transport Fitter as Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. The Government of India in the Ministry of Education and Youth Welfare also recognizes Mechanical Transport Fitter also known as Fitter Mechanical Transport as Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. The stand taken by the 2 petitioners received support from the Air Force Authorities, who filed affidavit in the proceeding before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge considering the relevant documents placed on record and the stand of various authorities, accepted the contention of the 2 petitioners that they fulfilled the eligibility criteria and that they should be considered for appointment on the strength of their merit position in the select list and following the reservation principle. The following is the finding of the learned Single Judge: 16. Apart from the above, the petitioners have also placed reliance on the Annexure-7 & 8 communications dated 8.3.2007, 27.6.2007 and 21.8.2007. By the first communication dated 8.3.2007, the Government of Assam, in the Transport Department requested the Director of Technical Education, Assam to clarify whether the diploma in Automobile in "MT FIT" trade submitted by the petitioners could be equated with that of a diploma in Automobile Engineering issued from the institutions recognised by the Government of Assam. By the first communication dated 8.3.2007, the Government of Assam, in the Transport Department requested the Director of Technical Education, Assam to clarify whether the diploma in Automobile in "MT FIT" trade submitted by the petitioners could be equated with that of a diploma in Automobile Engineering issued from the institutions recognised by the Government of Assam. By the second letter dated 27.6.2007, the petitioners were informed by the Director of Personal Service, Air HQ, New Delhi that certificate of diploma in Mechanical Engineering, issued to Mechanical Transport Fitter Tradesman by the Indian Air Force is valid and recognised by the Government of India for recruitment to subordinate posts and services under the Central Government, for which a diploma in Mechanical Engineering is the prescribed qualification. 17. By the third communication dated 21.8.2007, the APSC had informed the petitioners that the commission had recommended them on merit basis as per their performance in the interview and that the diploma in Mechanical Engineering issued by IAF, recognised by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Social Welfare, Department of Education, was accepted by APSC and accordingly they were called for the interview. 19. By annexure-9 letter dated 29.6.2007, the Govt. of Assam in the Transport Department, intimated the Joint Secretary (ADMN) to the Governor of Assam that the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 6186/2007 i.e. Shri Sanjib Chutia, Ex-serviceman of Indian Air Force (IAF) was selected by APSC for appointment as MVI but on scrutiny by the Director of Technical Education, it was observed that the institute from which he had passed out was not an institution recognised by the Government of Assam and as such, he could not be appointed due to non fulfillment of essential qualification for the post of MVI. What is noteworthy is that as per this letter, the particular diploma to the credit of the petitioners is not recognised by Government of Assam, which stand is par se contrary to the particular qualification laid down in the advertisement itself, in terms of which the particular diploma must be recognised either by the Govt. of India or by the Govt. of Assam, The fact that the particular diploma to the credit of the petitioners is a recognised one by the Govt. of India, (may not be by the Govt. of Assam), was not reflected in the said Annexure-9 letter dated 29.6.2007. of India or by the Govt. of Assam, The fact that the particular diploma to the credit of the petitioners is a recognised one by the Govt. of India, (may not be by the Govt. of Assam), was not reflected in the said Annexure-9 letter dated 29.6.2007. Thus, there was total non-application of mind on the part of the State Government in the Transport Department while turning down the appointment of the petitioners. 20. As to whether on the basis of their merit position, they could or would get appointment or not, is altogether a different issue but their very existence in the fray could not have been set-at-naught by branding them to be not qualified for the post of MVI. 21. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are allowed so far as the same relate to the grievance of the petitioners regarding non-recognition of their qualification for the post of MVI. It is hereby declared that on the basis of the recognition extended by the Govt. of India, the particular diploma obtained by the petitioners conforms to the requirement of the educational qualification laid down in the advertisement and thus, their candidatures and recommendation could not have been brushed aside by the Govt. of Assam in the Transport Department. 15. Regarding dismissal of W.P. (C). No. 4589/2008, the facts are quite glaring and speak for itself. The 5 petitioners of W.P. (C). No. 4589/2008 are placed at Sl. Nos. 13 to 17 in the select list. The vacancies advertised were 3. Even if the subsequent 4 vacancies are taken into consideration, making it a total of 7 posts, the merit position of the petitioners do not justify their appointment. It was further compounded by the fact that those appointments were made in violation of the stay order of this Court. The grievance of the petitioners that without affording any opportunity of hearing, their appointments were cancelled and therefore such cancellation would be illegal, would not in any manner dilute the illegality of their appointments. When the illegality was so glaring, learned Single Judge justifiably declined to interfere with the cancellation of appointment of the petitioners on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as issuance of notice to the petitioners would not have made any material difference. When the illegality was so glaring, learned Single Judge justifiably declined to interfere with the cancellation of appointment of the petitioners on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as issuance of notice to the petitioners would not have made any material difference. Therefore, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the said writ petition. 16. Coming to the core issue as to whether the Transport Department could have made appointments beyond the advertised posts, learned Single Judge after examining the provisions of the Assam Transport Service Rules, 1983 governing recruitment to the post of MVI observed that the APSC was required to recommend double the number of vacancies and that select list forwarded by the APSC remains valid for 12 calendar months from the date of recommendation. In the present case, though the advertisement was for 3 vacancies, even if the subsequent 4 vacancies are taken into consideration which makes the total number of vacancies 7, the APSC recommended 19 candidates instead of 14. Learned Single Judge also found that the select list though was valid upto 20.5.2005, 14 appointments were made after that date. Learned Single Judge held as under: 25. This now leads us to the larger issue as to whether the appointments made beyond the advertised posts could be sustained. The Recruitment Rule governing the recruitment to the post of MVI is the Assam Transport Service Rules, 1983. Direct recruitment to the post of MVI is provided under Rule 6. Rule 8 and 9 provide for the procedure and methodology for direct recruitment to the post of MVI. As per the said provisions, direct recruitment to the cadre of MVI shall be made by the appointing authority on the basis of the selection made by the APSC. Before the end of each year, the appointing authority shall make an assessment of the likely number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment during the next year and communicate the same to the Commission with a request to recommend candidate for direct recruitment within a period of three months. On receipt of such requisition, the Commission shall invite applications through advertisement in accordance with general instructions in force. On receipt of such requisition, the Commission shall invite applications through advertisement in accordance with general instructions in force. The Commission shall then make the selection in accordance with the scheme of selection prescribed by the Government and shall prepare and forward to the Government a list of candidates in order of preference, who are found suitable for appointment to the service. Rule 9(d) clearly stipulates that the list forwarded by the Commission shall remain valid for 12 calendar months from the date of recommendation. 26. In the instant case, the advertisement was for three vacancies of MVI. As per the additional affidavit filed by the Transport Department in terms of the above quoted order dated 26.11.2008, after the initial requisition placed for advertising three vacancies, number of vacancies increased to 7 (seven), as a result of promotion of 4 (four) MVIs to the post of District Transport Officer on 26.12.2002. Accordingly, a request was made to APSC, vide letter dated 4.11.2003 to make recommendation for seven posts. As regards the appointment beyond these 7 (seven) posts, the affidavit reflects that the recommendation made by the APSC was not in conformity with the prevalent practice under which the requirement is to send names of candidates double the number of vacancies. According to the additional affidavit, the APSC ought to have recommended 14 names against 7 (seven) vacancies. In fact, communication was also made with the APSC, as to how it could recommend more than 14 names but there was no reply. 27. The affidavit has further revealed that subsequently 3 (three) more vacancies occurred due to death and promotion of the earlier incumbents on 27.11.2005, 1.2.2006 and 25.9.2006. Further 3 (three) more vacancies were also filled up in the newly created Districts of Chirang, Baksa and Udalguri under the BTC area. 28. The select list having been published on 21.5.2004, by operation of Rule 9(d), it would have remained valid for 12 calendar months i.e. upto 20.5.2005. The appointments have been made as follows: (1) Notification dt. 3.1.2005 - 1 (2) Notification dt. 8.2.2006 - 5 (3) Notification dt. 18.2.2006 - 2 (4) Notification dt. 26.2.2007 - 1 (5) Notification dt. 23.4.2007 - 1 (6) Notification dt. 25.3.2008 - 5 Total: 15 29. In the aforesaid process, the candidates selected at Sl. The appointments have been made as follows: (1) Notification dt. 3.1.2005 - 1 (2) Notification dt. 8.2.2006 - 5 (3) Notification dt. 18.2.2006 - 2 (4) Notification dt. 26.2.2007 - 1 (5) Notification dt. 23.4.2007 - 1 (6) Notification dt. 25.3.2008 - 5 Total: 15 29. In the aforesaid process, the candidates selected at Sl. No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 have been appointed. Out of which, the last five candidates are petitioners in W.P. (C). 4589/2008 who could not have been appointed in view of operation of the interim orders passed in the other two writ petitions about which a mention has been made above. 30. From the above, what is seen is that it became a matter of convenience for the official respondents to make appointment from the select list unmindful of the fact that advertisement was only for three vacancies. It is the settled position of law that appointments can be made only against the advertised vacancies and not against vacancies falling thereafter. This is to ensure that in any public employment, equal opportunities are provided to all eligible candidates and that the mandates of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India are followed. 31. While there could be some justification for making appointments against seven vacancies in view of the fact that four more vacancies had arisen during the year but there cannot be any justification for making appointment against vacancies arising in subsequent years. Those vacancies could not have been anticipated as per the requirement of Rule 9 of the aforesaid rules of 1983 and the authority by extending the selection list from time to time, could not have made a mockery of the said position of law by resorting to illegal appointments as per their whims and caprices. 32. Both Mr. A.M. Mazumdar and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsels representing such appointees tried to justify the action on the part of the official respondents towards appointment of the private respondents by making submissions that such appointments could be resorted to as a policy decision and when there was necessity to fill up the vacancies that had arisen in due course. I am afraid such an argument, by no stretch of imagination, can be accepted. It is not a case of advertising large number of vacancies. I am afraid such an argument, by no stretch of imagination, can be accepted. It is not a case of advertising large number of vacancies. Only three vacancies were advertised and it may be so that considering the limited number of vacancies, many eligible candidates, might not have applied. Thus, their right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. Similarly, by taking recourse to further appointments on the basis of the select list prepared for 3/7 vacancies, other eligible candidates waiting consideration, for appointment, have been deprived of the said right which the writ Court cannot approve. The right to be considered demands that candidates who have acquired eligibility for recruitment to the post in the mean time, should also be given opportunities to participate in the selection process. 33. As noticed above, the life of the panel was for one year only. In Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 488 , the apex Court noticing similar provisions of validity of the panel for one year, observed that the same could be extended only by the State and that too, if the statutory rule permit it to do so. In the instant case, the State is not authorised to extend the validity of the panel as there is no statutory provision to do so. Even if the State is authorised to do so, they could not have extended the validity of the merit list only to accommodate the candidates against future vacancies, which exercise was anti-thesis to transparency and fair play in the matter of public employment. Once the advertised vacancies had been filled up, the select list got exhausted and expired. 17. Following the above discussion, learned Single Judge summed up his order as under: (i) The first writ petition being W.P. (C). 4589/2008 is dismissed. (ii) The matter shall now go back to the Govt. of Assam in the Transport Department to take a decision as to whether only 3 (three) or at best 7 (seven) appointments could have been made pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.7.2002. (iii) Depending upon the decision in respect of (ii), steps for cancellation of appointments beyond the said posts should be taken immediately. (iv) After such cancellation of appointments, the vacancies which will be available alongwith other vacancies, if any, shall be filled up by following the recruitment rules. (iii) Depending upon the decision in respect of (ii), steps for cancellation of appointments beyond the said posts should be taken immediately. (iv) After such cancellation of appointments, the vacancies which will be available alongwith other vacancies, if any, shall be filled up by following the recruitment rules. (v) In view of the answer to the second and third writ petition i.e. W.P. (C). 6186/2007 and W.P. (C). 6025/2007, fresh exercise shall be carried out to find out as to who are candidates in the merit list who will come within the zone of consideration for appointment against the vacancies stipulated in (ii). While doing so, reservation as per rule shall also be kept in mind. (vi) The Chief Secretary of the State shall fix the responsibility of the officers involved in making the illegal appointments beyond the advertised/permissible posts. 18. We are in agreement with the view expressed by learned Single Judge. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virender Singh Hooda and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2004) 12 SCC 588 held that if the select list has to be kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up other vacancies also, that would naturally amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who would have become eligible subsequent to the advertisement and selection process. 20. It is settled law that once the advertised posts are filled up, the merit list gets exhausted and subsequent vacancies will have to be filled up by fresh recruitment process in accordance with law. In the present case, the Transport Department had made appointments far beyond the advertised posts, even after taking into consideration the subsequent 4 vacancies, which cannot be justified. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Pradip Kumar Kedia and Ors., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 432 to contend that authorities can go for appointment from the existing select list where there is immediate need for filling up vacancies. We are afraid we cannot accept the submission advanced. Firstly, without much elaboration, it can be said that the facts of Pradip Kumar (supra) are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. We are afraid we cannot accept the submission advanced. Firstly, without much elaboration, it can be said that the facts of Pradip Kumar (supra) are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Moreover, in Pradip Kumar, the advertisement itself stated that the number of vacancies indicated was only approximate and was liable to increase or decrease. The decision in Pradip Kumar can be of no help to the appellants as in that case, the direction of the High Court to appoint the 3 wait listed candidates as Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal beyond the approved 16 selected candidates was set aside by the Apex Court. 22. In the light of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the learned Single Judge, which is hereby affirmed. Consequently all the writ appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The interim orders passed earlier shall stand vacated. Appeal dismissed