JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. – Heard Mr. Th. Manihar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Sobhna, learned counsel for the State respondent and Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rommel, learned counsel for the Manipur Public Service Commission. None appears for the private respondents. 2. In the present case, the petitioner, who is an aspirant for the post of Lecturer in the subject of Botany for Government Colleges in terms of the advertisement issued by the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) dated, 18.10.2006 is aggrieved by her non selection. According to the petitioner, in terms of the aforesaid advertisement for appointment to four posts of Lecturers for Government Colleges under the Government of Manipur, she applied for the same and she participated in the recruitment process. Having passed the written test, petitioner was interviewed. According to the petitioner, she had performed extremely well and she was expecting to be selected. However, when the result was declared on 15.12.2008, the petitioner did not find her name amongst the successful candidates and name of four other general candidates were published, who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the present writ petition. According to the petitioner, petitioner obtained information regarding the marks obtained by the said successful candidates as well as that of herself. As per the said information, it was found that the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 had obtained 39.5, 39, 38.66 and 37.66 marks respectively, whereas, petitioner was awarded 37 marks. The petitioner being suspicious of the marks given by the Selection Committee approached the MPSC for necessary information from the MPSC. The main apprehension of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been fairly assessed by the Selection Committee and selection was arbitrary and whimsical. 3. The State respondents as well as the MPSC have denied the allegations of the petitioner by filing their respective affidavits in opposition. The private respondents in spite of service of notice upon them, have chosen not to appear before this Court. 3. The State respondents as well as the MPSC have denied the allegations of the petitioner by filing their respective affidavits in opposition. The private respondents in spite of service of notice upon them, have chosen not to appear before this Court. The State respondents in their affidavit have stated that the necessary information sought for by the petitioner relating to selection had been furnished and there is nothing to doubt the fairness and procedure adopted by the MPSC and their recommendation had been already accepted and acted upon by the State Government and no case is made out for interference of this Court. The MPSC also has filed their affidavit in opposition and allegations of unfair practice and arbitrariness as alleged by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the MPSC is constitutional expert body and after minute and proper examination of the overall performance of each candidate, the MPSC recommended the best amongst them and merely because the petitioner considers herself to have performed excellently, her self assessment may not be shared by the experts and no material -- irregularity has been found in the recommendation so made. It is also stated that the MPSC had already furnished all the relevant information sought for by the petitioner and there is no merit in the writ petition. 4. Subsequently, the writ petitioner has filed an additional affidavit on 25.06.2013 in which it has been stated that of the four candidates recommended, two candidates namely, Keithellakpam Sanatombi Devi, bearing Roll No. 24 relinquished service soon after submitting joining report. Similarly, the last recommended candidate namely, Ayam Victor Sigh, bearing Roll No. 37 did not accept the offer and did not join service at all and as such, because of leaving the service by the said K. Sanatombi Devi and non acceptance of the offer by the other candidate, Ayam Victor Singh, two vacancies have remained. It has also been stated that even though two vacancies had remained during the subsistence of the select list, the authorities did not take any step to fill up the said vacant posts and as such, the said two vacancies remain till date and in view of that the petitioner could be accommodated against one of the said vacant posts. 5. The State respondents have filed an affidavit objecting to the said additional affidavit of the petitioner. 5. The State respondents have filed an affidavit objecting to the said additional affidavit of the petitioner. The State respondents while admitting that even though two posts are lying vacant in the department as mentioned above, and the State Government had earlier issued appointment orders to the candidates who were recommended by the MPSC, thereafter the department could not on its own issue any appointment letter to any candidate who was not recommended by the MPSC and in the present case the petitioner was not recommended by the MPSC. It has also been stated that assuming but not admitting that the petitioner is in the wait list, in view of the fact that the wait list cannot survive more than 18 months from the date of publication of the select list, which in the present case, was made on 15.12.2008, even the wait list if prepared would have expired by now. And accordingly, it has been stated that no right has accrued in favour of the petitioner for appointment to any of the vacant posts. 6. Mr. Th. Manihar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the subsequent development of occuring of two vacancies soon after recommendation by the MPSC, due to leaving of the service by one of the selected candidates and non joining by another recommended candidate, petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment in view of the fact that the petitioner was the most meritorious candidate after the said four selected candidates. In view of the above subsequent development, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not pressing the contention as regards fairness or otherwise of the selection and recommendation of the four respondents by the MPSC more particularly, after two of the recommended candidates had declined to take up the job. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner had filed the present writ petition during the subsistence of the select list, the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment could not be defeated merely because of passage of time and has submitted that a direction may be issued to the respondents for giving appointment to the petitioner. 7. Ms. 7. Ms. Sobhna, learned GA, however has vehemently opposed to such a prayer contending that now more than five years have lapsed after the publication of the select list and at this point of time no direction could be issued for appointment of the petitioner and these two vacant posts which are admittedly in existence are to be filled up by considering claim of other candidates who have in the meantime become eligible and it would not be fair to deprive the other fresh candidates for applying for the said posts and it could not be proper to rely on the recommendation made five years before. Further, it has also been stated that the MPSC did not make any recommendation by way of preparing any wait list and as such since the petitioner was not recommended by the MPSC, the question of appointment of the petitioner does not arise. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel also has submitted that the MPSC had made the recommendation after fair assessment of the merit of the candidates concerned and there is no irregularity in the selection process. Further, it has been also submitted that the MPSC did not make any recommendation of the petitioner by way of preparing any wait list 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not pressing as to the fairness or otherwise of the selection process but is pursuing her claim only on the basis of the subsequent development of occurrence of vacancies which arose soon after the recommendation made by the MPSC and issue of appointment order, this Court is refraining from making any observation as to the fairness or otherwise of the selection made by the MPSC. Therefore, the only remaining issues to be decided in the present writ petition are, as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to be considered for appointment to any of the two vacancies which are in existence as claimed by the petitioner and whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage after a lapse of about 5 years of the declaration of the result of the competitive examination. 9. 9. As mentioned above, it is not in dispute that there are two vacancies as on date, one, due to leaving of service by one of the appointed candidates namely, K. Sanatombi Devi and another, due to refusal to accept the offer of appointment by another candidate, namely Ayam Victor Singh. It has been stated that these two vacancies arose during the subsistence of the select list. Therefore, if the petitioner had been included in the wait list, in the normal course, the petitioner would have been entitled to be considered for appointment to any one of the vacancies which arose due to leaving of service and non joining by the selected candidates as these vacancies which are not fresh vacancies are normally to be filled up by candidates whose names are placed in the wait list. However, it is also noted that the MPSC did not recommend any person in the wait list. Therefore, the question will arise as to whether the petitioner would have any right to claim to be included in the wait list or in the absence of any recommendation by the MPSC, would the petitioner have any right accrued in her favour for consideration by the authority for appointment It is to be noted that the role of the MPSC is essentially confined to selecting” recommending the best candidates from amongst the competing candidates based on merit for appointment by the Government. It is the State Government which is the appointing authority which is to make the appointment of the candidates in order of merit as may be recommended by the MPSC. The role of the MPSC is limited only to the aspect of recommending the best candidates as per the requisition made by the appointing authority. As noted above, the MPSC made recommendation of the best from the candidates in respect of the four vacancies advertised and requisitioned by the State Government and no recommendation was made as far as any wait list is concerned. However, this cannot distract from the position that the State Government is to fill up vacancies on the basis of merit of the candidates who have applied for the posts. Normally, in addition to making recommendation of the select list, the MPSC would have prepared the necessary wait list, but, in the present case the same had not been done. However, this cannot distract from the position that the State Government is to fill up vacancies on the basis of merit of the candidates who have applied for the posts. Normally, in addition to making recommendation of the select list, the MPSC would have prepared the necessary wait list, but, in the present case the same had not been done. Therefore, the question will arise whether the petitioner would have any right to claim for preparation of a wait list. It is to be noted that the very basis for appointment to any public post under the Government is merit. Thus, if a person is found to be meritorious enough to be considered for appointment to such post, such person would have a legitimate expectation to be considered for appointment and such legitimate expectation, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be frustrated or extinguished by mere absence of a formal recommendation by the MPSC in the form of wait list, if the respective and relative merit position of the candidates can be ascertained on the basis of the assessment made by the MPSC. As to the preparation of select list and wait list, it may be noted that it is nothing but the formal declaration of the relative merit position of the candidates based on the assessment made by the Selection Body. The select list will obviously consist of the most meritorious candidates corresponding to the vacancies which the appointing authority seeks to fill up and the wait list would consist of the lesser meritorious candidates who would have the opportunity to occupy the place of the more meritorious candidates, in the event such more meritorious candidates do not take the offer of appointment. Thus, the select list and wait list are nothing but the chronological arraying of successful candidates in order of merit as assessed by the Selection Body and based on the number of advertised posts/vacancies. Therefore, even in the absence of a formal recommendation of the waiting list made by the recommending authority, the appointing authority could direct the recommending authority to make the necessary additional recommendation by way of waiting list/reserve list to fill up the vacant posts based on merit unless the rules otherwise require. Therefore, even in the absence of a formal recommendation of the waiting list made by the recommending authority, the appointing authority could direct the recommending authority to make the necessary additional recommendation by way of waiting list/reserve list to fill up the vacant posts based on merit unless the rules otherwise require. Thus, in the event of any of the recommended candidate refusing to accept the offer of appointment, the appointing authority could request the recommending body to make further recommendation based on merit, if the appointing authority intends to fill up the vacant advertised posts. In such a situation, the next most meritorious candidate would have a legitimate claim to be considered for appointment. This Court has taken this view, considering the fact that the right of any candidate to be considered for appointment is inextricably linked to and inheres in the merit determined after proper assessment by the Selection Committee, which could not be ignored, unless the rules provide otherwise. Indeed, it would be a different matter, if the rules specifically provides for not making any wait list. 10. Therefore, if it is correct that the petitioner is the most meritorious candidate after the aforesaid four candidates recommended by the MPSC as contended by her, the petitioner would have a legitimate right to claim for appointment on the basis of her merit, against any vacancy which may arise due to either non joining or leaving of the service by any of the selected candidates within the permissible time, which cannot be ignored without compelling and valid reasons. Therefore, this Court is of opinion that non recommendation of the petitioner by the MPSC by way of preparing wait list cannot deprive the legitimate right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment if she is suitably placed in order of merit. Even though the petitioner has claimed that she had obtained 37 marks, there is no material to show in the present writ petition that she is the most meritorious candidate after the aforesaid four selected candidates. Therefore, it will be required to be ascertained by the authorities concerned as to whether the petitioner is the most meritorious candidate after the aforesaid four selected candidates. Therefore, it will be required to be ascertained by the authorities concerned as to whether the petitioner is the most meritorious candidate after the aforesaid four selected candidates. If on such consideration by the authorities it is found that she is indeed the most meritorious candidate after the aforesaid four selected candidates, she would have the right to be considered for appointment to one of the vacant posts on the basis of her meritorious position, unless the rules otherwise require or if there be any cut off mark/bench mark decided by the Selection Committee which the petitioner does not possess or the same is not feasible or possible because of certain event or development. 11. The next issue which arises for consideration is that even if the petitioner is found to be the most meritorious candidate after the four persons, would she have the right to claim for consideration for appointment against the vacancies now, after a lapse of about five years? The fact remains that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 6.5.2009 after the result was declared on 15.12.2008, which is before the lapse of 18 months of preparation of select list which according to the respondents themselves is the normal period of validity of any select list and as such, petitioner having approached the Court within time and having shown due diligence and having pursued the matter in right earnest, the aforesaid right of the petitioner could not be defeated merely because of delay in disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that even though five years might have lapsed after the select list was prepared and occurrence of the vacancy, it cannot lead to deprivation of the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment to one of the vacancies. However, having said so, it may also be observed as stated above that if, in the meantime, any intervening event had occurred which would come in the way of consideration of the petitioner for appointment to any of the vacancies, the authorities will have due regard to the same while considering the claim of the petitioner. However, having said so, it may also be observed as stated above that if, in the meantime, any intervening event had occurred which would come in the way of consideration of the petitioner for appointment to any of the vacancies, the authorities will have due regard to the same while considering the claim of the petitioner. It may be that in the meantime, there may come into existence any ban on the appointment or the posts which were lying vacant may be abolished or that the nature or method of recruitment has been fundamentally altered because of which any such recommendation cannot be given effect and such other eventualities. These instances are merely demonstrative and not exhaustive. It is to be noted that it is also well established that merely because a person has been recommended for appointment, he has no vested right to be appointed. But in the present case, admittedly, there are two vacancies as mentioned above and the authority had acted upon the earlier recommendation of the MPSC to fill up the vacancies thus, clearly indicating their intention to fill up those vacancies. The State respondents in their affidavit in opposition have also stated that these posts will be filled up after due process by the Government. 12. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. (i) The MPSC will determine the relative merit position of the petitioner in the selection process for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Botany on the basis of the advertisement dated 15.12.2008 and if it is found that the petitioner is the most meritorious candidate after the aforesaid four selected candidates (the Respondents No. 5,6,7 and 8), the name of the petitioner shall be forwarded to the State respondents, unless the rules otherwise require. The State respondents thereafter, shall examine and consider the recommendation of the MPSC to consider the appointment of the petitioner to any of the two vacant posts subject to any of the intervening events or circumstance which may come in the way of such consideration as discussed above. (ii) The MPSC will do the needful in terms of the above direction within a period of three months from today considering the fact that presently the MPSC is heavily engaged with the recruitment process of Manipur Civil Services etc. (ii) The MPSC will do the needful in terms of the above direction within a period of three months from today considering the fact that presently the MPSC is heavily engaged with the recruitment process of Manipur Civil Services etc. The State Government will, thereafter, undertake the exercise of consideration as directed above, within two months from receipt of the recommendation from the MPSC as stated above. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.