ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity, correctness and propriety of the order/communication dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of respondent no.4, whereby offer of appointment issued to the petitioner by letter dated 28.09.2011 (Annexure-2) for the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General) has been withdrawn. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2011 respondent Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (in short “Board”) took a decision to make appointment on the vacant and sanctioned posts of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General)/ Assistant Executive Engineer (GTO)/ Assistant Engineer (Civil) through campus selection procedure from the different Engineering Institutes in the State of Bihar. In view of the aforesaid decision of the respondent Board, campus selection process, on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in pre final year and final year of the course, was undertaken by the functionaries of the Board, and final select list of successful candidates for their appointment on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General), Assistant Executive Engineer (GTO) and Assistant Engineer (Civil) was notified, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The name of the petitioner was included amongst the successful candidates in BC category for the purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of preparation of select list (Annexure-1) by the respondent Board, and in view of the fact that the name of the petitioner was included on the basis of merit position amongst successful candidates in BC category for the purpose of his appointment on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General), respondent no.4 by his letter No. 1704 dated 28th September 2011 (Annexure-2) issued offer of appointment to the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General) on probation for a period of three years in the Pay-Band-3 Rs. 15600-39100 with grade pay Rs. 5500/- plus other admissible allowances with certain conditions as indicated in the said letter/ offer of appointment and he was asked to submit his joining on 15.10.2011 before respondent no.4 at the fixed venue, if terms and conditions indicated therein were acceptable to the petitioner. 4. 15600-39100 with grade pay Rs. 5500/- plus other admissible allowances with certain conditions as indicated in the said letter/ offer of appointment and he was asked to submit his joining on 15.10.2011 before respondent no.4 at the fixed venue, if terms and conditions indicated therein were acceptable to the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he accepted the terms and conditions indicated in the offer of appointment vide Annexure-2, but when he appeared before the respondent no.4 on the fixed venue and date, i.e. 15.10.2011 for giving his joining, his joining was not accepted by the respondent no.4 on the ground that offer of appointment issued to the petitioner by letter dated 28th September 2011 (Annexure-2) has been withdrawn/ cancelled by letter No.1817 Patna, dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure-3). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued and submitted that, admittedly, the petitioner has faced rigor of selection process conducted by the respondent Board and in view of his merit position his name was included in the select list for the purpose of his appointment on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General). According to him, the offer of appointment issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 28th September 2011 (Annexure-2) could not have been arbitrarily withdrawn/ cancelled by the respondent No.4. He has also pointed out that according to the averments made in paragraph-11 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Board, out of total sanctioned posts earmarked for BC category candidates, only eight posts could be filled up and two posts remained vacant, since other two selected candidates did not give their joining. It is contended that in view of the fact that the name of the petitioner was in the select list (Annexure-1) on the basis of his merit position and further in view of the fact that two posts remained vacant, the respondent No. 4 was not legally justified to withdraw/ cancel the offer of appointment (Annexure-2) issued to the petitioner, by the impugned order /communication dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure-3), and, therefore, according to him, respondents are/were obliged to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General). In support of his above contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Pritilata Nanda [ AIR 2010 SC 2821 = (2010)11 SCC 674 ], Jai Narain Ram Vs. In support of his above contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Pritilata Nanda [ AIR 2010 SC 2821 = (2010)11 SCC 674 ], Jai Narain Ram Vs. State of U.P. [ (1996)1 SCC 332 ], R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of India [1995 Supp (2) SCC 230], and has heavily relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Kumar Vinayak Vs. State of Bihar [ 2000(3) PLJR 495 ]. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board and its functionaries has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that campus selection process for the purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General) and other categories of engineers was one time measure and that selection process has already come to an end. It is contended that though 2 posts of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General), earmarked for the BC category candidates, remained vacant due to non-joining of the successful candidates, but, thereafter, fresh selection process was started by issuance of Employment Notice No. 7/2011 (Annexure-5 to the I.A. No. 3495 of 2012) for the purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General), besides other categories of posts. It is highlighted that pursuant to the aforesaid Employment Notice no. 7/2011, selection process was initiated and it has concluded, and even offer/ letter of appointment has been issued to the successful candidates. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, in the aforesaid factual background, now at this belated stage, the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General) cannot be considered. According to him, though the eligible persons have right to be considered, but mere inclusion of the name in the select list does not create any indefeasible right to the successful candidates and further, the appointment cannot be given even to the successful candidates on the posts advertised beyond the notified number of vacancies. On these pleas, besides others, a prayer is made on behalf of the respondents that the present writ petition be dismissed. In support of his above contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. On these pleas, besides others, a prayer is made on behalf of the respondents that the present writ petition be dismissed. In support of his above contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India [ AIR 1991 SC 1612 = (1991)3 SCC 47 ], State of Orissa Vs. Rajkishore Nanda [2010(3) PLJR (SC) 165] as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pravin Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar. [ 2011(4) PLJR 214 ]. 7. It would be relevant to mention here that pursuant to the order and direction dated 18.03.2013 passed by this Court, a supplementary counter affidavit with heading “Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondent Board (now BSPHCL) and its officials” was filed on 1st April 2013, wherein in paragraph-5 it has been stated that pursuant to the selection process on the basis of Employment Notice No. 7/2011 the selection process is complete, but 17 posts of Assistant Engineer/ Assistant Executive Engineer/ Junior Electrical Engineer (Gen/ GTO) are still vacant due to non-joining of the posts by the successful candidates. Similarly, with respect to selection process initiated and concluded by the respondent Board through campus selection process, it has been stated in paragraph-11 of the original counter affidavit that out of total sanctioned posts as per roster earmarked for the BC category candidates, only eight candidates joined the posts and two posts remained vacant due to non joining of successful candidates. 8. After having heard the parties and on consideration of materials available on record as also taking into consideration the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of our own High Court, this Court finds that on the basis of the valid selection process initiated and concluded by the respondent Board, name of the petitioner was included in the select list (Annexure-1) amongst the BC category candidates, and accordingly he was issued offer of appointment vide letter dated 28.09.2011 (Annexure-2) by the respondent No. 4 for the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General). Admittedly, against ten posts earmarked for BC category candidates only eight candidates joined and two posts remained vacant. The petitioner is not claiming his appointment merely on the basis of inclusion of his name in the select list (Annexure-1). Admittedly, against ten posts earmarked for BC category candidates only eight candidates joined and two posts remained vacant. The petitioner is not claiming his appointment merely on the basis of inclusion of his name in the select list (Annexure-1). The main grievance of the petitioner is that once offer of appointment Vide Annexure-2 was issued to him by a competent authority on the basis of the valid selection process and once the seats are/were still vacant even as per the pleadings of the respondents, then the respondent authority could not have issued the impugned order dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure-3) withdrawing/ cancelling the offer of appointment. Apparently, even if the petitioner is given the appointment against the post earmarked for BC category candidates then in that case also he would be the 9th candidate and still one more post shall remain vacant. He is not claiming appointment on a post beyond the notified number of vacancies. This Court further finds that even after subsequent selection process vide Employment Notice No. 7/2011, 17 posts are still vacant. It is not the case of the petitioner that since his name was included in the select list, therefore, he must be appointed even against the future vacancy. His claim is that since his name was in the select list (Annexure-1) on the basis of his merit position, and he was issued the offer of appointment (Annexure-2), therefore, the impugned order/ communication dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure-3) withdrawing offer of appointment to him be set aside, and he should be directed to be appointed within the notified number of vacancies, which are still vacant due to non joining of successful candidates. 9. In an identical matter brought for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Kumar Vinayak Vs. The State of Bihar (supra) a Division Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the different judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court has crystallized the law in paragraph- 12 of the judgment. The law crystallized by the Division Bench squarely covers the present case. I cannot do better than to quote paragraph-12 of the aforesaid judgment, which is reproduced herein below:– “After completion of the selection process for filling up the post in the public offices, a panel/ selection list is prepared consisting the names of the successful candidates. The law crystallized by the Division Bench squarely covers the present case. I cannot do better than to quote paragraph-12 of the aforesaid judgment, which is reproduced herein below:– “After completion of the selection process for filling up the post in the public offices, a panel/ selection list is prepared consisting the names of the successful candidates. In cases where the number of vacancies are notified in the advertisement then the appointment from the said panel/select list is to be made to the extent of the vacancies notified in the advertisement, and no appointment in excess of the posts advertised is to be made from the said panel/select list. In cases of non-joining of any candidates appointed against notified vacancies, a person from the said panel which becomes waiting list is to be appointed, but no appointment can be made from the said panel or writing list in excess of the posts advertised unless the rules or the policy decision provide so or the State Government takes a policy decision to meet certain extreme or urgent situation. Waiting list is not a perennial source of recruitment and no person as a matter of right can claim appointment to the vacancies arising in excess of the notified vacancies only on the basis of inclusion of his name in the panel which does not give any such right. If the select list/ waiting list is to be remained inoperative for indefinite period, it will deprive an opportunity to participate in the selection process to those who become eligible subsequent to the said advertisement. If the vacancies are not notified in the advertisement, in that situation the vacancies existing at the time of advertisement and anticipated vacancies may be filled up from the select list or waiting list.” (Emphasis supplied by me) 10. In paragraph 17 of the aforesaid judgment it has further been clarified and held that in case the vacancies are notified in the advertisement, then the appointment from the select list is to be made to the extent of vacancies notified in the advertisement and no appointment is to be made in excess of the post advertised except to fill up the posts available due to non-joining or some exceptional or some emergent situation. 11. 11. After having given anxious and serious thoughts over the entire factual matrix of the case and keeping in view the judgment of a Division Bench of our own High Court, referred to above, which has the binding precedent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order/communication dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent no.4 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it is, accordingly, set aside. The respondent Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and/or its successor Body and their functionaries are hereby directed to issue a letter of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (General) against those vacant posts, which were notified/ advertised and remained vacant due to non-joining of the successful candidates. 12. Entire exercise must be completed by the respondent- authorities within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order. 13. In the peculiar facts of the present case and in order to avoid future litigation, this Court directs that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the arrears of salary prior to the date of his joining pursuant to the present order. He shall be entitled to receive salary and other emoluments from the date of actual joining pursuant to the order issued by the authorities in compliance of the present order. The inter se seniority of the petitioner vis-à-vis other Assistant Electrical Engineer (General) shall be counted from the date of the joining of the petitioner irrespective of the selection/appointment of other Assistant Electrical Engineer based on any selection process. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 15. In view of the order passed in main writ petition, I.A. 3495 of 2012 and I.A. No. 5366 of 2012, both filed on behalf of the petitioner, have become infructuous and are, accordingly, disposed of.