JUDGMENT Pratyush Kumar,J. This intra court appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 11th August, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6404 (S/S) of 2007; Ankit Yadav Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another whereby relief claimed in the writ petition by the present appellant was denied, writ petition was dismissed and the present respondent no.1, Managing Director U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. was directed to examine as to how reservation was applied when only four vacancies were available in the quota of direct recruitment and thereafter hold the selection for the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer. 2. The aforesaid writ was filed by the present appellant on the ground that pursuant to an advertisement published on 8th October, 2004 the present appellant, after duly applying, having requisite qualification, appeared in the written test on 20th May, 2005 and he was declared successful and further he appeared for interview held on 20th August, 2005, however, the respondents did not declare the result promptly and after a long time on 18th February, 2007 in the local news paper Dainik Jagran the same was declared wherein the name of the petitioner was within the list of successful candidates. The name of the appellant was recommended for appointment but the respondent no. 1, though issued appointment letter to other successful candidate but for some reason no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner. This action is wholly discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. On the successive representations made by the present appellant no appointment letter was issued hence the present writ petition, wherein the following reliefs were claimed: "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sahayak Jan Sampark Adhikari in pursuance to the result dated 18.2.2007 as contained in Annexure No.3 to the Writ Petition. (ii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;" 3. On behalf of the present respondents, counter affidavit was filed whereby holding of written examination and interview was admitted. (ii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;" 3. On behalf of the present respondents, counter affidavit was filed whereby holding of written examination and interview was admitted. Other averments were denied and it has been stated that the present appellant could not be given appointment on account of non availability of vacancy to other backward class category, final result was declared on 7th March, 2007 and it has been admitted that other successful candidate selected against the vacancy of scheduled caste category was issued appointment letter and recommendation was made to cancel the recruitment to the non existing vacancy in the quota of other backward class category. It has been further stated that the recruitment in question was made to fill up backlog vacancies of direct recruitment. On the subsequent verification no backlog vacancy was found in other backward class category quota. 4. The present appellant filed the rejoinder affidavit and denied the averments made in the counter affidavit and it has been stated that requisition to fill up backlog vacancies was sent in the year 2004 after working out the details of vacancies proposed to be filed up as backlog vacancies for quota of respective categories. After competent authority approved the calculation and determination of these vacancies on account of mistake therein proposed recruitment to fill up backlog vacancy of OBC quota cannot be cancelled to the detrimental of the present appellant. He has further denied that out of six posts of assistant public relation officers two were meant for promotion of departmental employees. According to him no such rule exists. He has further stated that out of six posts three posts were occupied by candidates of general category against the strength of two. He has further stated that out of six, three posts were meant for open category candidates, two for other backward class category and one for scheduled caste category. Since one OBC candidate was already working there were two vacancies one for scheduled caste category and one for other backward class category were available and, therefore, there was no mistake in the calculation thereof and decision not to appoint him is tainted with malafide and deserves to be quashed. 5. Since one OBC candidate was already working there were two vacancies one for scheduled caste category and one for other backward class category were available and, therefore, there was no mistake in the calculation thereof and decision not to appoint him is tainted with malafide and deserves to be quashed. 5. The learned single judge after hearing the parties passed the impugned judgment and order on the strength of the decision rendered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Heera Lal Vs. State of U.P.; (2010) ADJ-I and dismissed the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition. 6. Feeling aggrieved the present intra court appeal has been preferred. 7. Heard Sri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 8. During the argument learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that two posts were advertised on 8/14th October, 2004 wherein the appellant was declared successful to be appointed against backlog vacancy of other backward class category but he was denied appointment due to non availability of such vacancy. He has further submitted that one successful candidate belonging to the category of scheduled castes was appointed and the present appellant was denied appointment on fictitious ground. He has further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition respondents again advertised one post to be filled up by scheduled caste category candidate which shows one post was available for the appointment of the present appellant. According to him the learned single judge did not take into consideration averments made in the rejoinder affidavit and wrongly applied ratio of Heera Lal's case (supra) and dismissed the writ petition. He has further submitted that averments made in the subsequent affidavit and amended writ petition were not even denied by the respondents as such availability of one post remained unchallenged. 9. In support of the argument he has referred the following case law: (1) Heera Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others (2011) 29 LCD 1 . We have taken through para 32 of the report in support of the above argument. (2) R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of India (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 230. Para 10 of the report has been relied on behalf of the appellant. (3) Bhagwan Parashuram College and another Vs. State of Haryana and others (1999) 6 SCC 46 . We have taken through para 32 of the report in support of the above argument. (2) R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of India (1995) Supp. (2) SCC 230. Para 10 of the report has been relied on behalf of the appellant. (3) Bhagwan Parashuram College and another Vs. State of Haryana and others (1999) 6 SCC 46 . Para 4 to 6 have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. (4) A.P. Agrawal Vs. Government of NCTE of Delhi and another (2000) 1 SCC 600 . Reliance has been placed on observations made in para nos. 12,14 and 15 of the report. (5) Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology and another Vs. M. Pushkaran; (2008) 1 SCC 448 . Para nos. 12,13 and 18 of the report have been relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. (6) East Coast Railway and another Vs. Mahadev Apparao and others; (2010) 7 SCC 678 . From para nos. 13 to 23 reliance has been placed on the observations made in these paras. (7) Neeraj Chaurasia and another Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another (2012) 4 UPLBEC 3047 . (8) Judgment dated 28th July, 2015 passed in Special Appeal No. 552 of 2014; Pramod Kumar Tiwari and others Vs. State of UP. and others. 10. On behalf of the respondents these arguments have been repelled and argued that the facts stated by the learned counsel for the appellant are disputed and in the writ petition such questions cannot be examined by this Court and the present appellant has had no ground or cause to file the present writ petition. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the respondents have given a valid reason for not filling up the vacancy. According to him it was wrongly advertised for the candidate for OBC Category and on subsequent verification it was discovered to belong to scheduled caste category candidate, therefore, after cancelling the partial recruitment of backlog vacancies advertised in the year 2004, the post was re-advertised. The decision was taken by the appointing authority after due application of mind on relevant material and law does not prohibit correction of error, more-so law also does not command the authorities to perpetuate the error committed earlier. He has further submitted that the arguments advanced in support of the present appeal are misconceived and deserve to be rejected. 12. The decision was taken by the appointing authority after due application of mind on relevant material and law does not prohibit correction of error, more-so law also does not command the authorities to perpetuate the error committed earlier. He has further submitted that the arguments advanced in support of the present appeal are misconceived and deserve to be rejected. 12. On the basis of the arguments advanced before us and the pleadings filed before the learned Single Judge following points determination arise: (i) Whether decision not to appoint the present appellant was discriminatory and tainted with malafide? (ii) Whether the learned Single Judge committed error in not taking into consideration the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit, amended writ petition and the supplementary affidavit? If so its effect? (i)Whether decision not to appoint the present appellant was discretionary and tented with malafide? 13. According to the averments contained in the writ petition the action/omission of the respondents have been discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14,16 and 21. The first ground to support this challenge is that one selected candidate of the same recruitment, belonging to scheduled caste category, was appointed whereas the present appellant was discriminated though similarly situated. The second ground is that inspite of the repeated representations the present appellant was not given appointment. 14. In respect to first ground there is no factual controversy. The only reply offered on behalf of the respondents is that the candidate who was appointed on the basis of result of 2004 recruitment was a scheduled caste category candidate and in that quota there existed a backlog vacancy, whereas the present appellant belongs to OBC category and though backlog vacancy of OBC category was advertised but on subsequent verification it was found not existing, therefore, the recruitment for backlog vacancies was cancelled to this extent. 15. On behalf of the present appellant large number of cases have been referred. In the case of R.S. Mittal's case (supra) in para 10 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a person on the select list has no vested right to be appointed. He has merely right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time if a vacancy exists in accordance of merit such candidate should not be ignored for appointment there has to be justifiable reason to deny appointment to such selectee. 16. He has merely right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time if a vacancy exists in accordance of merit such candidate should not be ignored for appointment there has to be justifiable reason to deny appointment to such selectee. 16. In Bhagwan Parashuram College's case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has treated non completion of recruitment process resulted by non appointment of selected candidate to be vulnerable as arbitrary and malafide. 17. In A.P. Agarwal case (supra) the principal laid down in the case of R.S. Mittal (supra) has been reiterated. 18. In the Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology's case (supra) the Apex Court reiterated the principle laid down in R.S. Mittal's case (supra). In para 15 of the report the Hon'ble Apex Court has in other words reiterated the principle laid down in Bhagwan Parashuram College case (supra) and held that if vacancies are proposed to be filled, the State to obliged to fill them in accordance with merit from the list of selected candidates. 19. East Coast Railway's case (supra) the above principles have been reiterated and further the word ''arbitrary' has been explained to mean either non application of mind or absence of reasons. 20. In Neeraj Chaurasia's case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court while referring the case law on this point has held that expiry of life of select panel due to its cancellation in absence of bonafide reasons to be bad in law. In the Pramod Tiwary's case (supra) recruitment was initiated in respect of vacancy of two categories, first, vacancies of current recruitment year and second, backlog vacancies. All the backlog vacancies were filled up without any controversy, dispute arose about filling up of 60 vacancies of current recruitment year. Against the recommendation of 60 selectees, 48 were given appointment, 12 vacancies were not filled as the 12 successful candidates stood appointed against the backlog vacancies of the year 2007. When new requisition was sent, it was challenged by way of writ petition but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. In this peculiar facts and circumstances of the case special appeal was allowed and order impugned therein was set aside. The 12 persons below in the merit list were held deemed to be selected candidates. 21. When new requisition was sent, it was challenged by way of writ petition but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. In this peculiar facts and circumstances of the case special appeal was allowed and order impugned therein was set aside. The 12 persons below in the merit list were held deemed to be selected candidates. 21. In view of above, legal position is clear a successful candidate has no indefeasible right to be appointed on the vacancy advertised provided his non appointment is not the result of discrimination or arbitrariness. Further it should be based on proper reason and justifiable. 22. On behalf of the respondents reason has been given as non availability of vacancy, advertisement published in the year 2004 was alleged to be result of error in counting the vacancies. Subsequent advertisement for the recruitment of one scheduled caste category candidate was also justified on the basis of subsequent checking. 23. The crucial point emerges before us is that if non appointment of the present appellant was for bonafide reason, the present appellant has no occasion to complaint because he would not be a victim of arbitrariness though it is a disputed question when the requisition was sent for two backlog vacancies what was the prevailing position of the vacancies subjected to direct recruitment and appointment thereof between reserved categories candidate. 24. What we find that the appellant and the respondents have consistently taken the contrary stand. According to para 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant: "4. That the deponent searched the Website of the U.P. Power Corporation on the internet and has got to know that the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. was created on 14.1.2000. After amalgamation in the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., the strength of the post of Personal Relation Officer has remained the same, which is two only and the post of Asistant Personal Relation Officer has increased from 6 to 7. For the purposes of reservation, the post of Assistant Personal Relation Officer and the Personal Relation Oficer will be combined and the tally will reach to 9. A copy of the relevant extract of the strength of personals in the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. as down loaded from the Internet is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. SA-1 to this Suppmentary Affidavit." 25. A copy of the relevant extract of the strength of personals in the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. as down loaded from the Internet is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. SA-1 to this Suppmentary Affidavit." 25. Whereas in para 5 of the counter affidavit six posts were then existing, two for promotion and four for direct recruitment. In reply to supplementary affidavit in their supplementary affidavit the respondents replied the para quoted above as under: "5. That it is to be submitted that there are only Six post of APRO is available and out of which 4 post are available for direct recruitment and the present selection was made for two post of backlog reserved category candidates one each for schedule caste and one of O.B.C. Candidate and there was no backlog post of O.B.C. Category candidate was avaialble and as such the petitioner was not appointed on the post of A.P.R.O. It is not disputed that the appellant had applied to the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer (Sahayak Jan Sampark Adhikari). Now in the supplementary affidavit in para quoted above he has made two incorrect statements; first he enclosed annexure SA-1 downloaded extracts from the website of the respondents showing the strength of Personnel Relation Officer and Assistant Personnel Relation Officer in the establishment of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd after its amalgamation. This extracts bear the date 10.1.2008. On the strength of this extracts the appellant wants us to believe that in the year 2004 when advertisement in question was published there were two posts of Personnel Relation Officers and seven posts of Assistant Public Relation Officer. The convenient mistake made by the present appellant is that he has spelt the word ''personnel' as ''personal'. These two words bear different meanings. Whereas according to Oxford Dictionary word ''personnel' means ''the people who work for a large organisation' where the the word ''personal' connotes having to do with or belonging to particular person and similar such connotation in reference to this adjective. The word ''personal' is adjective and the word ''personnel' is a noun. By any stretch of reasoning Assistant Personnel Relation Officer cannot be taken to indicate Assistant Public Relation Officer (Sahayak Jan Sampark Adhikari). 26. The word ''personal' is adjective and the word ''personnel' is a noun. By any stretch of reasoning Assistant Personnel Relation Officer cannot be taken to indicate Assistant Public Relation Officer (Sahayak Jan Sampark Adhikari). 26. Thus there are two mistakes either deliberate or by accidental omission that neither annexure SA-1 shows the number of posts of Assistant Public Relation Officer (including Public Relation Officer) as they existed in the year 2004 nor annexure SA-1 relates to the posts in question, it relates to post of quite another category. 27. As against this in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in response to the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant, we find the consistent stand reiterated on behalf of the respondents that there was only six posts of Assistant Public Relation Officer. Two were meant to be filled by promotion, four were available for direct recruitment. According to the law laid down in Heera Lal's case where the cadre consisted of less than five posts, there only four posts could not be subjected to reservation rule quota. Even further according to the respondents at that time one OBC category candidate was already working in their establishment. When we reach this conclusion, without any hesitation we find that the sole ground, taken in the appeal that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration averments contained in amended writ petition and supplementary affidavit, becomes without substance. Further, we find that non appointment of the appellant on the post erroneously advertised to be filled up by the candidate of OBC category is well justified, bonafide reasons existed then and still exists in support thereof. Neither the present appellant was discriminated nor decision not to appoint him was actuated with malafide. The one candidate was appointed on the basis of 2004 recruitment belonged to scheduled castes category. The appellant cannot claim equality with him. Both are unequal, of being different categories, as also availability of vacancy wise for one category the respondents thought one vacancy existed, further they though it not existed. 28. It is settled law that there can be no equality among unequals. In the case of Ashutosh Gupta Vs. The appellant cannot claim equality with him. Both are unequal, of being different categories, as also availability of vacancy wise for one category the respondents thought one vacancy existed, further they though it not existed. 28. It is settled law that there can be no equality among unequals. In the case of Ashutosh Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 2002 SC 1533 ) the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the concept of equality and said that concept of equality before laws does not mean the idea of absolute equality amongst all which may be a physical impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is similarity of treatment not identical treatment. The protection of equal laws does not mean that all will be treated identical. The protection of equal laws does not mean that all laws must be uniform. Equality before law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and the likes should be treated alike. Equality before law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though they were the same. 29. Further it is to be remembered that there can be no equality on the basis of wrong order (South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd Vs. Prem Kumar Sharma AIR 2006 2727). We refer this case to explain that when inspite of non application of quota rule scheduled caste category candidate was appointed by the respondents why not the appellant should not be appointed. A wrong decision by the government neither confers a right to claim parity or quality with that. Two wrongs would never make a right. 30. In view of the above, our reply to point no.1 is that the decision not to appoint the present appellant was not discriminatory or tainted with malafide, point no.1 is replied in the negative. (ii) Whether the learned Single Judge committed error in not taking into consideration the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit, amended writ petition and the supplementary affidavit? If so its effect? 31. This point already stands replied by us while recording our opinion on point no.1. To explain that we place on record that averments contained in rejoinder affidavit, amended writ petition and the supplementary affidavit of the appellant could not make out violation of rights guaranted by Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If so its effect? 31. This point already stands replied by us while recording our opinion on point no.1. To explain that we place on record that averments contained in rejoinder affidavit, amended writ petition and the supplementary affidavit of the appellant could not make out violation of rights guaranted by Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In addition to that the posts as existed in the year 2004 were out side the purview of reservation. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration all these facts and has rightly recorded his finding and only mere mechnical reproduction of the averments, having no substance, would not have served any purpose and absence thereof does not lead to an inference that those averments were not taken into consideration, hence point no.2 is also replied in the negative. 32. In view of above, the instant intra court appeal is without substance. Writ Petition had no merit, it has been rightly been dismissed and special appeal also deserves to be dismissed. 33. Before parting we would like to observe that the present litigation has held up recruitment for a long time and from the beginning the author of the litigation was aware about its futility even then he taxed the courts twice. The tendency of unnecessary litigation is increasing and overburdening the law courts there by depriving bonafide litigants from hearing and adjudicating of their lists. This tendency is growing like cancerous cells and required prompt remedial steps. 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also come across such instances and expressed its anxiety in this regard. Before parting we would like to mention that frivolous litigation is encumbering the law courts increasingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India and others (2014) 8 SCC 470 in paras 191 to 193 has expressed its anxiety on this score. We experience the same anxiety, which necessitates us to reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court for the benefit of the litigants, they read as under: "191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long-drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings) worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for what he has lost for no fault? The suggestion to the legislature is that a litigant who has succeeded must be compensated by the one who has lost. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the introduction of a "Code of Compulsory Costs". 192. We should not be taken to have suggested that the cost of litigation should be enhanced. It is not our suggestion that court fee or other litigation related costs should be raised. Access to justice and related costs should be as free and as low as possible. What is sought to be redressed is a habituation to press illegitimate claims. This practice and pattern is so rampant that in most cases disputes which ought to have been settled in no time at all before the first Court of incidence are prolonged endlessly for years and years and from Court to Court upto the highest Court. 193. This abuse of the judicial process is not limited to any particular class of litigants. The State and its agencies litigate endlessly upto the highest Court just because of the lack of responsibility to take decisions. So much so that we have started to entertain the impression that all administrative and executive decision making are being left to Courts just for that reason. The State and its agencies litigate endlessly upto the highest Court just because of the lack of responsibility to take decisions. So much so that we have started to entertain the impression that all administrative and executive decision making are being left to Courts just for that reason. In private litigation as well, the litigant concerned would continue to approach the higher Court, despite the fact that he had lost in every Court hithertobefore. The effort is not to discourage a litigant in whose perception his cause is fair and legitimate. The effort is only to introduce consequences if the litigant's perception was incorrect and if his cause is found to be not fair and legitimate, he must pay for the same. In the present setting of the adjudicatory process, a litigant no matter how irresponsible he suffers no consequences. Every litigant, therefore, likes to take a chance even when counsel's advice is otherwise." 35. Accordingly intra court appeal is dismissed.