JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Petitioner is seeking appointment pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2002. Perusal of impugned order dated 13.8.2013 rejecting the representation of the petitioner would reveal that all the vacant twenty five posts have already been filled up in District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in fact there are twenty six posts available in District Udham Singh Nagar for Assistant Teacher (Urdu), however, one post is still vacant. 3. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in AIR 1998 SC 18 has held 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.” 4. 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.” 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 has affirmed the earlier view taken in the case of Surinder Singh (supra) and has held that candidates, whose names are included in the waiting list have no legal right to seek appointment and only in the case of extreme exigency by way of policy decision, the Government may decide to fill up the vacant post from the candidates included in the waiting list. Otherwise, vacancies should be notified so that all eligible may apply and compete as per the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that two teachers, namely, Arif Hussain and Mohd. Aslam, respondent nos. 4 and 5 respectively, were given appointment in 2013, therefore, petitioner ought to have been given appointment. 6. Perusal of judgment dated 27.12.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2000 of 2013 (S/S), Atiqur Rehman v. State of Uttarakhand and others, Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, would reveal that legality of appointment of respondent nos. 4 and 5 is still under consideration. 7. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that if appointment of respondent nos. 4 and 5 is found to be illegal, same shall be quashed as stated before this Court in the case of Atiqur Rehman (supra). 8. In view of the above, no order is required to be passed in favour of the petitioner. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 9. CLMA NO. 14521 of 2013 also stands disposed of accordingly.