JUDGMENT Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel, Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, appearing for both the respondents. By way of this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a-direction to the respondents to fill up the vacant post of Junior Engineer from the select list dated 30.3.2010 in order of merit and to consider his case for appointment in the said post by virtue of his selection at serial No. 11, candidates up to serial No. 10 having been already appointed. Case of the petitioner is that he is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering. Respondents called for names of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange to fill up 13 posts of Junior Engineer on regular basis. Name of the petitioner was recommended by the Employment Exchange along with others as he fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per requisition. 2. In the interview held on 29.1.2010, the interview committee selected 65 candidates, being five times of numbers of vacancies. In the select list prepared on 30.3.2010, petitioner was placed at serial No. 11. Respondent No. 2 appointed first 10 candidates in order of merit. The last appointment was made on 12.04.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that though 3 posts are lying vacant, appointment has not been offered to him, in spite of his selection at serial No. 11. The petitioner has further contended that he belongs to the general category and that the llth post corresponds to the 46th vacancy in the 100 point roster, which is unreserved. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 4. This court by order dated 18.5.2011, perused the relevant record produced by the Secretary of the Sewerage Board, who was also personally present before the court. The court noted that 10 appointments were already made. As the record could not indicate that there are 13 vacancies, the court directed the respondents to file an affidavit indicating the number of vacancies for which selection was made and as to whether there is any proposal to fill up the further vacancies on the basis of said selection. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed an affidavit on 6.6.2012. As the record could not indicate that there are 13 vacancies, the court directed the respondents to file an affidavit indicating the number of vacancies for which selection was made and as to whether there is any proposal to fill up the further vacancies on the basis of said selection. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed an affidavit on 6.6.2012. In para 3 thereof, it is stated that 4 posts of Junior Engineer are lying vacant in different divisions under the Sewerage Board. It is further stated in para 4 that the respondents were contemplating to fill up the vacancies as per the selection held on 29.1.2010 but because of filing of the writ petition, further steps could not be taken. It is, thus, seen that 4 vacancies in the post of Junior Engineer are presently lying vacant. The respondents have stated that they were contemplating to fill up the vacant posts as per the select list, in which case, the turn of the petitioner would come first. It is true that a person selected and empanelled in the select list has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected but he has a right to be considered for appointment. However, in the case of R. S. Mittal v. Union of India, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230, the hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims and when there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. In Director, SCTI for Medical Science and Technology and Another v. M. Pushkaran, (2008) 1 SCC 448 , the Apex Court after noticing some of the decisions operating in the field, including R.S. Mittal, held that application of law would, therefore, depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. 5. Referring to the above decision, the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Kedia, (2012) 1 SCC 432 held that where the court does not find any reason for the authorities not to offer any appointment to the candidate placed in the selection panel, the Court can direct appointment. 5. Referring to the above decision, the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Kedia, (2012) 1 SCC 432 held that where the court does not find any reason for the authorities not to offer any appointment to the candidate placed in the selection panel, the Court can direct appointment. In the present case, there is no reason to deny appointment to the petitioner though he is selected at serial No.11 and the first 10 candidates of the select list having been already appointed, with 4 vacancies still available. 6. Considering the above, particularly in view of the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit dated 6.6.2012 and the decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above, the court is of the view that respondent No. 2 should now issue the appointment order to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. The same shall be done within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition accordingly stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.