JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Applications were invited for 11 posts from all eligible candidates for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Accountant/Cashier and Accounts Clerk in the Treasury Office in district Haridwar. Petitioner and others applied. Interview was held on 27.12.1989 and thereafter select list was prepared and issued on 30.12.1989. Petitioner was placed at Serial No. 3 in waiting list. Undisputedly, Vinay Kumar Jain, who was at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list was given appointment on 8.12.1990 because select candidate did not report. Thereafter, one Ajay Kumar Jain, who was neither in the impugned select list nor in the waiting list was given appointment on 1.5.1991. Matter was reported that Ajay Kumar Jain was given wrong appointment despite the fact that he neither participated in the selection process nor his name was either in the select list or in the waiting list. After proper enquiry, the then Collector, Haridwar vide order dated 11.10.1994 was pleased to revoke the appointment of Ajay Kumar Jain. Ajay Kumar Jain approached this Court, however, petition filed by him was dismissed but he was given liberty to approach Public Services Tribunal and he approached Public Services Tribunal and ultimately his claim petition was dismissed. 2. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since Ajay Kumar Jain was wrongly given appointment ignoring the waiting list and his appointment has already been revoked and one Jawahar Chauhan who was at Serial No. 2 did not join, therefore, the petitioner being on top in the waiting list should be given appointment. 3. Undisputedly, select list and waiting list was declared on 30.12.1989 and as per Government Order dated 27.11.1977, select list was valid only for one year and three months, therefore, select list stood expired/exhausted on expiry of 15 months i.e. 31.3.1991. 4. Hon’ble Apex Court in recent judgment in the case of Raj Rishi Mehra and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in AIR 2013 SC 3580 , in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 while placing reliance on the previous judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court had held as under :- “15. 4. Hon’ble Apex Court in recent judgment in the case of Raj Rishi Mehra and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in AIR 2013 SC 3580 , in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 while placing reliance on the previous judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court had held as under :- “15. The question whether the candidates whose names are included in the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts as of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri 1992 Supp (3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and others 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others (1994) 1 SCC 126 , Prem Singh and others v. Haryana SEB and others 1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others (1996) 1 SCC 283 , Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (1997) 8 SCC 488 , Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486 , Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others (1998) 3 SCC 45 , State of J&K and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others (2005) 4 SCC 148 , State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others (2006) 3 SCC 330 , Ram Avtar Patwari and others v. State of Haryana and others 2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others (2010) 2 SCC 637 . 16. In Surinder Singh’s case, this Court observed as under: “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.” 5. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the candidate whose name is included in the waiting list has absolutely no legal right to claim appointment. This is for the Government to form policy to give appointment to the candidates of the waiting list considering the emergent situation. 6. Not only this, now since the select/waiting list stood exhausted in 1991, therefore, in 2013 it would not be proper for this Court to issue Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, if post is vacant, it should be filled up keeping in mind the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandate that public post should be advertised and all eligible should be given fair opportunity to apply and compete. Issuing Mandamus at this stage in the year 2013 would amount to depriving of eligible candidates who can apply and compete, if post is advertised. 7. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. CLMA No. 2831 of 2013 also stands disposed of accordingly.