JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have sought direction against the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioners on the post of Headmasters or on the equivalent posts. 2. As per the case of the petitioners, the respondent No.2-Commission had issued an advertisement dated 28.4.11 inviting applications for 2093 posts of Headmasters (Education) and equivalent posts. The corrigendum to the advertisement was issued on 19.8.11 and 9.9.11 respectively. The respondent No.2 thereafter issued fresh advertisement dated 17.2.12 (Annex.3), withdrawing the earlier advertisements, however clarifying that the candidates who had already applied earlier for the said posts need not apply afresh. The petitioners being qualified had applied for the said posts and had also appeared in the examination known as Headmaster(Secondary Education Department) Competitive Examination, 2012, held on 15.5.12. It appears that the result of the said examination was declared on 18.11.12 in which 2092 candidates were provisionally declared successful, and thereafter a waiting list of 1033 candidates was prepared and published on 29.1.13. However, certain petitions having been filed before this court challenging the said list, the Single Bench in the writ petition being SBCWP No. 19453/12 and others directed the RPSC to prepare the select list afresh vide the common order dated 15.2.13. The said order passed by the Single Bench having been challenged before the Division Bench, vide Special Appeal being No. 387/13, the Division Bench allowed the said appeal and confirmed the merit list prepared by the RPSC on 18.11.12. It appears that thereafter 166 candidates having been found to be ineligible from the said merit list dated 18.11.12, a fresh list of 2092 candidates was prepared on 12.6.14. The Commission on such reshuffling prepared additional waiting list of 253 candidates after picking up the candidates from the earlier waiting list while preparing the said merit list dated 12.6.14. The said list is on record at Annex.8. According to the petitioners, their names were included in the waiting lists prepared by the respondent No.2, and they were entitled to be appointed on the vacancies which had arisen on account of some of the successful candidates having either not joined, or they having been subsequently found to be ineligible. 3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. 3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. M.C. Taylor for the petitioners that in absence of any rule, the validity of select list should be considered as one year. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jagdish Chopra, (2007) 8 SCC 161 . According to him, the life of waiting list being coterminus with the select list, the waiting list also would be valid for one year from 12.6.14. He further submitted that even if the validity of waiting list is considered to be six months, as per Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'), then also the petitioners having approached this court before the expiry of six months, would be entitled to the relief claimed. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Shyam & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2005) 10 SCC, 314 . Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Mittal v. Union of India, 1995 (2) SLR, 437 he submitted that inaction on the part of the respondents in not operating the waiting list for filling up the vacancies without any justifiable reason deserves to be set right. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dr. Uma Kant v. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 2272 , he submitted that the persons kept in the reserved list are entitled for appointment, if the vacancies are caused during the validity period of the reserved list. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. S.N. Kumawat for the respondent No.2 submitted that the life of the waiting list being only six months as per Rule 20 of the said Rules, and even if six months is counted from the date 12.6.14, then also the said waiting list had lapsed in December, 2014. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 681 , he submitted that the petitioners did not have any indefeasible right to get the appointment, even if the vacancy existed. Relying upon the said decision, the learned Dy. Govt. Counsel Mr. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 681 , he submitted that the petitioners did not have any indefeasible right to get the appointment, even if the vacancy existed. Relying upon the said decision, the learned Dy. Govt. Counsel Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma has also submitted that the State Government is under no legal duty to fill up or notify vacancies unless the relevant recruitment Rules indicate, and in the instant case there being no provision in the relevant Rules, the petition deserves to be dismissed, more particularly when the waiting list, has lapsed. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and to the documents on the record, it appears that there are certain undisputed facts. It is not disputed by the parties that initially the result of the examination in question was declared on 18.11.12 and a list of 2092 candidates was prepared by the respondent No.2. It is also not disputed that thereafter the waiting list of 1033 candidates was also prepared and published on 29.1.13. It is also not disputed that after the order passed by the Division Bench directing the respondent-Commission to proceed further with the selection/recruitment on the basis of the result declared on 18.11.12, another tentative waiting list of 253 candidates was prepared on 19.5.14 as per Annex.21 and after reshuffling of the candidates a fresh list of 2092 candidates was prepared on 12.6.14 as per Annex.8. It is also not disputed that the names of the present petitioners did not find place in the main merit list dated 18.11.12 or in the merit list dated 12.6.14. According to the petitioners names of some of the petitioners were included in the earlier waiting list prepared on 29.1.13 and others were included in the waiting list dated 19.5.14. As such, the said position has also not been specifically disputed by the respondents in their respective replies. However, the question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners who were in the waiting lists are entitled to the appointments as prayed for. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant part of Rule 20 of the said Rules, which reads as under:- "20. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant part of Rule 20 of the said Rules, which reads as under:- "20. Recommendations of the Commission-(1) The Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates, whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned arranged in order of merit and forward the same to the appointing authority: Provided that the Commission may also to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in order of merit to the appointing authority within 6 months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the appointing authority." 7. As per the afore stated rule, the Commission is required to prepare list of suitable candidates in order of merit and forward the same to the appointing authority, and in addition thereto the Commission on the requisition of the appointing authority could recommend the names of suitable candidates from the waiting list within 6 months from the date on which the original list was forwarded. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), when the recommendations are made by the Commission in piecemeal, it would be proper to reckon the period of validity of the waiting list from the last date when the recommendation was made. Hence, in the instant case the Commission having lastly sent the recommendation on 12.6.14, though original list was prepared on 18.11.12, the period of six months for the purpose of validity of the waiting list should be reckoned from 12.6.14. Now, even if the said date i.e. 12.6.14 is taken as the last date on which the Commission had forwarded the names to the Government, then also the validity of waiting list would be up to 12.12.14 only, and the Commission could not have forwarded the names from the waiting list after 12.12.14, in view of the time limit prescribed in the aforesaid rule. As per the averments made in the petition also, the life of reserved list was to expire on 12.12.14 only. As per the averments made in the petition also, the life of reserved list was to expire on 12.12.14 only. There being no requisition made by the appointing authority, i.e. the respondent No.1, to the respondent No. 2 within the said period of six months, the respondent No.2 Commission could not have forwarded the names from the waiting list after 12.12.14. 8. That apart, the legal position as regards the right of the selected candidates seeking appointment is also very well settled way back in the year 1991 by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Shankersan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 . It has been held in para 7 as under:- "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted." 9. The ratio laid down in the said judgment has been followed in catena of decisions. To cite a few are, in case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad & Ors. (supra), in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jagdish Chopra (supra), All India SC & ST Employees Association v. A. Arthur Jeen, (2001) 6 SCC 380 , and in case of Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish, (2006) 1 SCC 779 . 10. (supra), in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jagdish Chopra (supra), All India SC & ST Employees Association v. A. Arthur Jeen, (2001) 6 SCC 380 , and in case of Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish, (2006) 1 SCC 779 . 10. It is also held by the Apex Court in case of K. Jayamohan v. State of Kerala, (1997) 5 SCC 170 that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list he does not acquire any absolute right of appointment. It is open to the Government to make appointment or not. Even if there is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same, but the appointing authority must give reasonable explanation for non-appointment. 11. In case of R.S. Mittal v. U.O.I. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners also it has been held that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment. Of course, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make appointments on its whims. 12. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is very clear that merely because the vacancies are notified, the State Government is not obliged to fill up all the vacancies. Of course, the decision of the State Government in not filling up the vacancies must pass the test of reasonableness on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is equally settled legal position that the select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. If the selection process is over, select list has expired, and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the court at a belated stage. Beneficial reference of the decision in case of State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777 be made in this regard. 13. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, none of the provisions of the Rules of 1970 mandates the Commission to recommend the names from the waiting list, nor mandates the State Government to fill up the vacancies after the select list expires. 13. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, none of the provisions of the Rules of 1970 mandates the Commission to recommend the names from the waiting list, nor mandates the State Government to fill up the vacancies after the select list expires. Hence, it was neither an indefeasible legal right of the petitioners to compel the State Government to operate the waiting list, nor the State Government was legally duty bound to operate the waiting list. They could have been considered for appointment only if the vacancies had arisen during the validity period of the waiting list. No such case has been made out by the petitioners. 14. Further, it is also required to be noted that in the instant petition, the petitioners have not alleged any malafides or arbitrariness against the respondents for not operating the waiting list. In absence of any such allegations, the respondents could not be given any direction to operate the waiting list and give appointments to the petitioners, as prayed for in the instant petition, more particularly, when the validity period of the waiting list has already expired in December, 2014. It is also required to be noted that after the order passed by the Division Bench on 11.4.14 confirming the result dated 18.11.12 declared by the RPSC, the RPSC had found 166 candidates ineligible as per the list dated 23.5.14 Annex.6, and that 253 candidates from the reserved list dated 29.1.13 Annex.5 were picked up for the purpose of consideration as per Annex.21. The respondent No.2-Commission thereafter had prepared the revised merit list on 12.6.14 as per Annex.8 for recommendation to the State Government. There is no allegation made by the petitioners that while reshuffling the candidates and preparing the revised merit list dated 12.6.14 for 2092 candidates, the respondent-Commission had discriminated the petitioners against the candidates similarly situated or had committed any illegality therein. 15. In that view of the matter, the court does not find any substance in the present petition. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. By this order, the stay application also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******