Rajes Kumar, J. Heard Sri V.P. Singh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Sanding Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner appeared in the direct selection for the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari in District Budaun. The result was declared on 19.3.1999. The petitioner was O.B.C. candidate. He was in waiting list of O.B.C. category. His name was placed at serial no. 2. According to the petitioner, the waiting list has been amended and as per amended result dated 30.1.2000, the petitioner was placed at serial no. 3. It appears that two selected candidates of O.B.C. category could not join and, therefore, two persons, who were at serial nos. 1 and 2 of the waiting list, have been selected. It is the case of the petitioner that one Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, who was placed at serial no. 2 of the waiting list of O.B.C. category could not join and, therefore, the petitioner, who was placed at serial no. 3 should be selected and in this regard the petitioner filed a representation dated 19.3.2000. When the representation was not decided, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Counter affidavit has been called. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the representation of the petitioner has been decided by the Commissioner, Gram Vikas Bibhag, U.P. vide order dated 7.3.2003 and the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. The said order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Gram Vikas Bibhag, U.P. is being challenged by way of amendment application. The amendment application has been allowed. The Commissioner, Gram Vikas Bibhag, U.P. by the impugned order dated 7.3.2003 has declined the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the waiting list was valid only for one year which has been expired and by the Government Order No. 1642/33-1-99 dated 12.4.1999, the Gram Vikas Adhikari cadre has been declared as a dead cadre and, therefore, the petitioner being the candidate of waiting list cannot be appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma has not joined, the petitioner being at serial no. 3 should be considered against the vacant post. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. The amended waiting list has been prepared on 30.1.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma has not joined, the petitioner being at serial no. 3 should be considered against the vacant post. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. The amended waiting list has been prepared on 30.1.2000. There is no dispute that the life of the waiting list was for one year and, therefore, after the expiry of one year, the persons whose names were placed in the waiting list could not be selected as the life of the waiting list has been expired. In the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, reported in 1996 ( 2) SLR, 723, the Apex Court on consideration of Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff ( Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 has held that as per rule the selection list holds good for a period of one year from the date of selection and, therefore, no mandamus could be issued to the Government to make recruitment on the basis of select list even after its expiry. No mandamus can be issued to Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. In the case of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Assn. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1994 Supp ( 2) SCC 591, Apex Court held as follows: "Coming to the next issue, the first question is what is a waiting list?; can it be treated as a source of recruitment from which candidates may be drawn as and when necessary?; and lastly how long can it operate? These are some important questions which do arise as a result of direction issued by the High Court. A waiting list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list of eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidate. How it should operate and what is its nature may be governed by the rules. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the competent authority prepares a waiting list then it is in respect of those 10 seats only for which selection or competition was held. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the competent authority prepares a waiting list then it is in respect of those 10 seats only for which selection or competition was held. Reason for it is that whenever selection is held, except where it is for single post, it is normally held by taking into account not only the number of vacancies existing on the date when advertisement is issued or applications are invited but even those which are likely to arise in future within one year or so due to retirement etc. It is more so where selections are held regularly by the Commission. Such lists are prepared either under the rules or even otherwise mainly to ensure that the working in the office does not suffer if the selected candidates do not join for one or the other reason or the next selection or examination is not held soon. A candidate in the waiting list in the order of merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one or the other selected candidate does not join. But once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason within the period the list is to operate under the rules or within reasonable period where no specific period is provided then candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was held for it. He has no vested right except to the limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous reasons. 9. A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service." Apex Court subsequently in the case of Surinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in ( 1997) 8 SCC, 488 has reiterated the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Assn. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1994 ( 2) SCC, 591 and observed that the candidate in the waiting list has no right to be appointed except to the limited extent that when a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does not join for some reasons and the ewaiting list is still operative. Apex Court further observed as follows: "16. It is in no uncertain words that this Court has held that it would be improper exercise of power to make appointments over and above those advertised. It is only in rate and exceptional circumstances and in emergent situation that this rule can be deviated from. It should clearly spelled out as to under what policy such a decision has been taken. Exercise of such power has to be tested on the touch stone of reasonableness. Before any advertisement is issued, it would, therefore, be incumbent upon the authorities to take into account the existing vacancies and anticipated vacancies. It is not as a matter of course that the authority can fill up more posts than advertised." In view of the above, the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Before any advertisement is issued, it would, therefore, be incumbent upon the authorities to take into account the existing vacancies and anticipated vacancies. It is not as a matter of course that the authority can fill up more posts than advertised." In view of the above, the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The decision of this writ petition will have no effect on the right of the petitioner which may arise from Writ Petition No. 12065 of 1999.