Judgment :- 1. This judgment shall dispose of all the writ petitions (W.P.Nos.4856 to 4858 of 2013), as common questions of law are involved in this petition. For the sake of brevity the facts have been taken from W.P.No.4856 of 2013. 2. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue appointment order to the petitioner as for the permanent Assistant Surgeon in pursuance to select list published by the third respondent dated 29-09-2010 and as per the recommendations of the second respondent dated 23-04-2012 with all service benefits at par with candidates already appointed within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 3. The petitioner is the medical Doctor having completed MBBS course from Dr. MGR Medical University from Thanjavur Medical College during the year 2001-2007. The petitioner got admission in MBBS course based on merit in the Government quota and after completing the MBBS, he was recruited as Assistant Surgeon vide order dated 03-02-2011 and he is in continuous service since then. 4. The submission of the petitioner is that even prior to joining the first respondent in the year 2009, the petitioner had appeared in the examination conducted by the third respondent for direct recruitment of Assistant Surgeons in (General/Specialities) in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service 2005-2009. It was after the examination conducted by the third respondent that the selected list was published and the petitioner was appointed under rule 10(a)(i) of the general rules(Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service) by the first respondent. 5. In the list of selected candidates, the petitioner was in the reserved list for Assistant Surgeon (General) under the Backward Class(General). 6. It is submitted that as per the select list published by the third respondent, the candidates in the reserved list were to be considered for appointment from the respective category as against the vacancies to be caused by, (1) non-joining of duty of selected candidates, (2) selected candidates who joined but left thereafter and (3) cancellation of provisional selection of the selected candidates for any reason. 7. It is the submission of the petitioner that about 127 candidates from the select list did not join duty and therefore, the first respondent was required to sponsor 127 candidates from the reserved list. The petitioner therefore, submits that he was already selected by the third respondent for appointment. 8. 7. It is the submission of the petitioner that about 127 candidates from the select list did not join duty and therefore, the first respondent was required to sponsor 127 candidates from the reserved list. The petitioner therefore, submits that he was already selected by the third respondent for appointment. 8. The petitioner now wants to join the Post-Graduate course and for that purpose, sat in the written entrance examination for admission to the Post-graduate degree/diploma/6 year M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery). The petitioner was not permitted to write the entrance examination till 2012 as he had not completed two years Government Service. According to the Prospectus, the candidate who are serving in Government can be given admission only under service quota. 9. The rule regarding this reads as under: "10 (a) The Following categories of Medical Officers will be treated as Service Candidates for the purpose of allotment of seats. 1. Medical Officers selected by the TNPSC and appointed in Tamil Nadu Medical Services on regular basis, with minimum of Two years continuous service as on 31.03.2013. 2. Medical Officers serving (continuously for two years) in Local Bodies in Tamil Nadu (b) Those Service candidates (selected by TNPSC) who have put in LESS THAN TWO Years of continuous regular service as on 31.03.2013 either in Tamil Nadu Medical Service or in Local Bodies are not eligible to apply for PG Degree Diploma/6 Year M.Ch (Neurosurgery) Courses. Fractional values of a year will not be counted. (c) 10(a)(i) candidates/ Contract Medical Consultants not selected by TNPSC will not be considered as Service Candidates. If selected for any Post Graduate course they have to submit their resignation. They will be considered as Service candidates if they have been selected by TNPSC at the time of counseling and have completed TWO years of service. If any Medical Officer including 10 a(i) candidates/ Contract Medical Consultants after selection by TNPSC apply as Private candidates suppressing the fact of thier selection, they will be debarred for TWO years. Further appropriate legal action will be taken against them. (d) Candidates working in Institutions coming under "Registered Societies Act" and Self Financing Institutions shall be considered as Non service candidates. (e) The period of service as Contract Medical Consultants will not be treated as regular service." 10. Further appropriate legal action will be taken against them. (d) Candidates working in Institutions coming under "Registered Societies Act" and Self Financing Institutions shall be considered as Non service candidates. (e) The period of service as Contract Medical Consultants will not be treated as regular service." 10. The petitioner claims that he is fully eligible for being admitted to PG course under service quota as he was continuously served as Assistant Surgeon in the Government for more than two years and also stands selected by the third respondent. Therefore, the results should be published for the entrance examination for PG admission conducted by the respondent Nos.4 and 5. 11. The case of the petitioner is, that now he has come to know that admission under service quota will be given only to the candidates who are holding regular appointment under the first respondent. 12. The petitioner therefore, filed a representation dated 21-02-2013 for issuance of appointment order in view of the selection by third respondent, so as to enable him to get admission in PG course under service quota. 13. The representation of the petitioner has not been answered by the respondent. 14. On the pleaded facts, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondent to issue appointment letter on permanent basis to the petitioner. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that because of the non-issuance of the appointment letter to the petitioner, he will lose the chance to undergo PG course in pursuance to the selection in the entrance examination. 16. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that once by the process of selection, the petitioner was selected by the TNPSC, he is entitled to appointment as Assistant Surgeon on permanent basis, as vacancies are available for reserve list. 17. On consideration, I find no force in the writ petition. This Court cannot issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the appointment of the petitioner as permanent Assistant Surgeon, merely on the basis of select list by the TNPSC, in the absence of any materials on record, showing that any person junior to the petitioner was appointed by ignoring the right of the petitioner. 18. The Constitutional Bench of Honourable Supreme Court in Shankaran Dash Vs. Union of India ( 1991 (3) SCC 47 ) has held, "7. 18. The Constitutional Bench of Honourable Supreme Court in Shankaran Dash Vs. Union of India ( 1991 (3) SCC 47 ) has held, "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha( AIR 1973 SC 2216 ), Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana( AIR 1987 SC 169 )." 19. Again the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to hold, In Food Corpn. of India v. Bhanu Lodh, (2005) 3 SCC 618 , this Court held: 14. Merely because vacancies are notified, the State is not obliged to fill up all the vacancies unless there is some provision to the contrary in the applicable rules. However, there is no doubt that the decision not to fill up the vacancies, has to be taken bona fide and must pass the test of reasonableness so as not to fail on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Again, if the vacancies are proposed to be filled, then the State is obliged to fill them in accordance with merit from the list of the selected candidates. Whether to fill up or not to fill up a post, is a policy decision, and unless it is infected with the vice of arbitrariness, there is no scope for interference in judicial review. ... 16. Whether to fill up or not to fill up a post, is a policy decision, and unless it is infected with the vice of arbitrariness, there is no scope for interference in judicial review. ... 16. It is, therefore, evident that whereas the selectee as such has no legal right and the superior court in exercise of its power of judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance of any writ in absence of any pleading and proof of mala fide or arbitrariness on the part of the employer. Each case, therefore, must be considered on its own merit." 20. In All India SC & ST Emplooyees' Association and Another Vs. A. Arthur Jeen and others (2001) (2) SCT: 2001(6)SCC 380, it was opined: "10. Merely because the names of the candidates were included in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against the existing vacancies and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court, after referring to earlier cases in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 " 21. In Dir S.C.T.I. for Medical Sciences & Technology Vs. Pushkaran (2008(1) SCT 298), the Honourable Supreme Court held that a person in select list does not have any legal right. 22. In this case, the petitioner was only placed in reserve list. It is not the case of the petitioner that any candidate lower in merit was appointed, nor there are any allegation of mala fide. Merely because the petitioner may not get admission cannot be a ground for issuance of writ of mandamus in absence of any legal right to the petitioner. 23. Consequently, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.