Judgment :- 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2002 declining his request for appointment as Assistant Medical Officer (Homeopathy) from the reserved list for 1990-91, has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, with consequential relief of mandamus, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner from the available vacancies with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 13.09.2001 denying the appointment to the petitioner for the reason that the candidates from the select list have already joined and the available vacancies stood exhausted. It may be noted here that selected persons have not been impleaded as parties to this writ petition even otherwise, petitioner cannot have any grievance of appointment, as no person placed below the petitioner has been appointed. 3. The challenge is also against the order dated 24.8.2001 appointing the candidates, vide which the request of the petitioner for appointment was declined for want of vacancies in the post of Assistant Medical Officer (Homeopathy) for the year 1990-91. The petitioner has also challenged the order informing the petitioner that as all the vacancies notified stood filled, the request of the petitioner for appointment cannot be considered. 4. As already observed, the petitioner has not arrayed the appointed candidates as parties to this writ petition. Finally, the petitioner challenged the order dated 01.10.1997 denying the request of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Medical Officer (Homeopathy) under the rules. 5. The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste and has passed 4= years diploma course in Homeopathy medicine in the year 1983, which was then a diploma Course and now it is a bachelors degree in medicine. The petitioner is registered with the Homeopathy Medical Council and got his name entered in the professional and Executive Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Assistant Medical officer (Homeopathy). 6. The petitioner submits that all the six candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the year 1990-91 were appointed in the year 1992, 1993, 1996. The last candidate appointed from the list was on 16.8.1996. 7. The petitioner requested the Government to appoint the petitioner in subsequent vacancies which arose after 23.09.1996. 6. The petitioner submits that all the six candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the year 1990-91 were appointed in the year 1992, 1993, 1996. The last candidate appointed from the list was on 16.8.1996. 7. The petitioner requested the Government to appoint the petitioner in subsequent vacancies which arose after 23.09.1996. In response to the request of the petitioner, he was informed vide memorandum dated 30.09.1991 that his name was included in the reserve list for selection in the event of selected candidates failed to join duty or until drawal of next select list by the Service Commission. 8. It is also submitted by the petitioner that as per the guidelines issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1995, reserve list of the current recruitment to the post was to be in force till the finalisation of select list of the next recruitment irrespective of the time-tap between the dates of their release. 9. The guidelines of the year 1995 can have no application to the case of the petitioner, as these guidelines cannot have retrospective effect. Furthermore, the guidelines are prima facie unconstitutional, as it is not open to the Commission to keep a wating list alive to deny the eligible person to compete for the post, becoming available in future. 10. The case of the petitioner is that the next notification for filling up of 7 vacancies was notified in the year 1995 for which examination was conducted in February, 2000 and final result was declared on 19.04.2000. The case of the petitioner is that before notifying recruitment for 7 vacancies, his case for appointment was required to be considered against 13 vacancies that arose between 7.8.1996 and next selection. 11. This stand is again misconcieved, being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The person who become eligible for appointment to the public post cannot be denied the right of consideration for appointment by keeping the waiting list alive for number of years. The guidelines otherwise also do not have any force of law, being not statutory in nature, which could give any right to approach the Court for its enforcement. 12. The petitioner filed a representation on 28.10.1996 for appointment against any of the existing vacancies, but his request was rejected vide order dated 01.10.1997. The guidelines otherwise also do not have any force of law, being not statutory in nature, which could give any right to approach the Court for its enforcement. 12. The petitioner filed a representation on 28.10.1996 for appointment against any of the existing vacancies, but his request was rejected vide order dated 01.10.1997. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, preferred O.A.No.685 of 1998 before Honble Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai seeking direction for his appointment in pursuance to reserve list of 1991. 13. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued a notification dated 29.8.1998 inviting applications for fresh appointment against which the petitioner filed O.A.No.9332 of 1998 before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the subsequent notification No.2/99 issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, inviting applications was also challenged by the petitioner vide O.A.No.1182 of 1999 in the learned Tribunal, all the applications were disposed of by the learned Tribunal, by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Medical Offier (Homeopathy), prima facie if any vacancy was available. 14. In view of the direction issued by the learned Tribunal, the case of the petitioner for appointment was rejected for want of vacancies. The petitioner again challenged the rejection of his representation by filing O.A.No.2228 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which on abolition of Tribunal, has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.5970 of 2007. 15. In the counter filed, the stand taken by the respondents No.1 & 3 is that on 29.09.1989, 15 vacancies of Assistant Medical Officer (Homeopathy) for regular appointment were notified. The appointment was to be made on the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The direction was also issued by the State Government to appoint the selected candidates by ousting the candidates holding the post on temporary basis under Rule 10(a) (i) of General Rules of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate service. 16. The petitioner was also holding the post on temporary basis and was therefore ousted from service to make place for regularly selected candidates in terms of his letter of appointment. 17. 16. The petitioner was also holding the post on temporary basis and was therefore ousted from service to make place for regularly selected candidates in terms of his letter of appointment. 17. The stand of the respondents 1 & 3 is that vide letter dated 30.09.1991, the petitioner was informed that he has been placed under reserve list which was to remain in force for selection in the event of selected candidats failed to join duty or until the drawl of next selection list by the Tamil Nadu Publice Service Commission. 18. The stand of the respondents 1 & 3 is that as per the communication dated 30.09.1991, the candidates of the reserve list could be appointed on regular basis only, if the vacancy was caused due to non joning of the candidates from the select list. 19. It is also the stand of the respondents 1 & 3 that all the six candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission were appointed on regular basis against the notified vacancies for the year 1990-91. Therefore, the question of operation of reserve list did not arise. It was for this reason, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected. 20. The stand of the respondents 1 & 3 is that guidelines dated 16.8.1995 are prospective in nature and cannot apply to the selection for the year 1990-91. It is also the stand of the respondents that the Honble Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner which was considered and rejected and therefore, order of the leraned Tribunal stood complied with. 21. Further stand taken by the respondents 1 & 3 that the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was being challenged in appeal. The positive stand in the reply affidavit is that the candidates in the reserve list could be considered for appointment only in place of selected candidates in the regular list, and once all the selected candidates had joined duty, there was no vacancies for appointment of the petitioner. 22. The positive stand of the respondents is that all the 15 vacancies notified stood filled up. It is specific stand of the respondents that all the six vacancies for the year 1990-91 stood filled up and therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to seek appointment. 23. 22. The positive stand of the respondents is that all the 15 vacancies notified stood filled up. It is specific stand of the respondents that all the six vacancies for the year 1990-91 stood filled up and therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to seek appointment. 23. The further stand taken in the reply affidavit is that 8 persons who were working on temporary basis had approached the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and their applications were disposed of, to consider their request for regularisation. The petitioner did not challenge the order of regularisation of their service. The sum and substance of the stand taken by the respondents is that all the notified vacancies for the year 199091 stood filled up and therefore, the candidates in the reserve list have no right to claim appointment. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned orders cannot be sustained, as the petitioner was not claiming appointment against six vacancies, but against the subsequent vacancies which arose since 23.09.1996. Because of the fact that the petitioner was informed vide memorandum dated 30.09.1991 that the reserve list for 1990-91 would remain in force for selection in the event of selected candidates failed to join duty or until the drawal of next select list by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 25. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that vacancies which arose between 1990-91 till drawal of next select list was to be filled up from the reserved list and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 26. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 13 vacancies arose to fill up with the select list of the year 1990-91 and notification on fresh vacancies was issued. 27. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondents failed to notice that temporary appointment of the petitioner against regular vacancies and that similarly situated persons were regularised in service, whereas, the petitioner has been denied right of regularisation. Thus, the impugned order is said to be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 28. In support of the right of the petitioner to be appointed, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Honble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in S.W.P.No.964/2008 decided on 01.02.2011 (Safina Javed vs. State and others). 29. Thus, the impugned order is said to be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 28. In support of the right of the petitioner to be appointed, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Honble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in S.W.P.No.964/2008 decided on 01.02.2011 (Safina Javed vs. State and others). 29. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once it is not disputed that all the vacancies notified were filled up with the selected candidates, the petitioner being on the reserve list has no right to be considered for appointment against the subsequent vacancies. 30. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the case of the petitioner is covered by the guidelines issued by the Service Commission in the year 1995 also cannot be accepted, as this guidelines cannot have retrospective effect. Furthermore, if the interpretation given by the petitioner to that guidelines is accepted, that guideline will ultra vires to Constitution being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court cannot adopt interpretation which will render the notification as ultra vires to the Constitution. The select list of previous selection where no vacancies are available, cannot be carried forward to future vacancies to deny right of consideration to the eligible candidates who may become eligible for appointment after the process of selection has come to an end. 31. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Safina Javed vs. State and others (supra) also no help to the petitioner, as in the said case, the petitioner was claiming appointment to the post in view of the resignation of a selected candidates during the period when the select list was still alive. 32. The ratio of the judgment of the Honble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir was that select list is to be prepared along with the waiting list which is required to be submitted to the Government and that the recommendations of the Commission are to remain in force for a period of one year, extendable by another period of six months on specific request of the Government. It has been specifically laid down in the said case that appointment during this period can be made against the notified vacancies of the selection and not with regard to future vacancies. The ratio of this judgment is also against the petitioner. 33. In the present case, it may be noticed here, that no vacancy was available to accommodate the waiting list candidates. The petitioner cannot draw any benefit from the judgment of the Honble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir on which reliance is placed. 34. The writ petition is without any merit. The Honbe Supreme Court in Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. B.Swapna and others (2005(2) S.C.T. 415) has been pleased to lay down that if a rule is amended during continuance of process of selection it does not affect same because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. It was further held that when Commission directed fresh advertisement, to till the posts, it shows that the Commission did not want new requisitions to be filled from rank list in force, therefore the vacancies cannot be filled from rank list. This judgment applies to the facts of this case. 35. For the reasons stated, finding no merit in the writ petition, is ordered to be dismissed. But no order as to costs.