JUDGMENT ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioners, though selected, but not appointed because the Respondent-Central Bank by taking note of various materials including the stated malpractice decided to discontinue the whole recruitment process though advertised and accordingly filed an affidavit dated 4.10.2014 on record. 3. The decision so taken by the Respondent-Bank in the background just cannot be tested in this writ petition as various factual aspects need to be considered. Even otherwise, the decision so taken just cannot be interfered with at the instance of Petitioners on the stated doctrine of legitimate expectation. 4. It is not the case of the Respondent-Bank that they have appointed anyone based upon the said advertisement. Therefore, the submission that having once selected, the Petitioners should have been considered for the post as prayed and/or at least opportunity should have been given and/or detailed inquiry ought to have been conducted cannot be accepted. It is settled that such selected candidates have no right to be appointed merely because they appeared in the examination and/or found place in the select list. The question of arbitrary or discriminatory appointment is also not the issue in the present case as noone is appointed on the basis of the said selected list. This action/decision of the Respondent-Bank is not within the purview of judicial review. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Bank has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.S. Balu and Another vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 , and reiterated the submission based upon the principle of law that even selected candidates do not have legal right in this behalf. 6. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and in view of the undisputed position of facts as well as law so recorded above, no case is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. 7. Rule is discharged accordingly. 8. No costs.