JUDGMENT : HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order dated 07.08.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11525 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Bench ordered the Collector, Aurangabad, to issue appointment letters to the writ petitioners and to join them in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there were only 105 vacancies for which appointments were made. Therefore, the writ petitioners cannot claim any right of appointment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioners pointed out that, in fact, there were 177 vacancies for which a panel of 346 candidates was prepared. The writ petitioners were in the said panel. Since, the writ petitioners were in the panel, therefore, they have a right to seek appointment against the advertised post. It is well settled that mere selection does not confer any right of appointment. It is for the employer to fill up the post as it consider appropriate. Reference may be made to the State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and others since reported in AIR 1973 SC 2216 ; wherein the Court held as follows: - “6. In the present case it appears that about 40 candidates had passed the examination with the minimum score of 45 per cent. Their names were published in the Government Gazette as required by Rule 10(1) already referred to. It is not disputed that the mere entry in this list of the name of a candidate does not give him the right to be appointed. The advertisement that there are 15 vacancies to be filled does not also give him a right to be appointed. It may happen that the Government for financial or other administrative reasons may not fill up any vacancies. In such a case the candidates, even the first in the list, will not have a right to be appointed. The list is merely to help the State Government in making the appointments showing which candidates have the minimum qualifications under the Rules. The stage for selection for appointment comes thereafter, …….” We do not find that the order of learned Single Bench is sustainable, hence, it is set aside and the writ application is dismissed. Consequently, the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal is allowed.