JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—We have heard Shri Manoj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Nisheeth Yadav for the U.P. Public Service Commission and learned Standing Counsel for State respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “(a) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to send requisition for calling name of the petitioner against 34 vacancies (as candidatures of 10 persons have been cancelled and 24 persons have not joined). (b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Commission after receiving the said requisition name of the petitioner and other similarly situated person may be recommended for necessary action. (c) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to take proper action on the recommendation so made by the Commission and issue appointment letter etc. and also provide consequential benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law. (d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem, fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. (e) And award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief background of the case, as reflected from the record, is that Public Service Commission, U.P. at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to, as the Commission) published an advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2004 in Employment News 25-31 December, 2004 (in short, advertisement 2004) for filling up 16 vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Civil) (General-8, SC-4 and OBC-4) in Irrigation Department. The petitioner belongs to general category and possesses requisite qualification. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied for the post in question. Thereafter, the Commission again made an advertisement No. A-6/E-1/2007 (in short, the advertisement 2007) on 12.1.2008 for filling up 163 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), out of which 88 (General-44, OBC-24, SC-18 and ST-2) posts were earmarked for Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Irrigation Department. As per instruction of advertisement 2007, the candidates, who had applied for 16 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) against the advertisement 2004 in general recruitment, need not apply again. As per instruction of advertisement 2007, the candidates, who had applied for 16 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) against the advertisement 2004 in general recruitment, need not apply again. Finally the combined examination of advertisement 2004 and advertisement 2007 was conducted for 179 vacancies (16 vacancies of advertisement 2004 and 163 vacancies of advertisement 2007), out of which 102 vacancies (16 + 88) were earmarked for Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Irrigation Department. The petitioner admittedly cleared the written examination and faced the interview. Finally the result was declared by the Commission on 10.3.2011. Against advertisement 2004 out of 16 vacancies, 14 candidates were recommended by the Commission, out of which 11 were given appointments and 2 posts were carried forward. For advertisement 2007 against 88 vacancies, 87 candidates were selected. Due to non-availability of ST candidates, two posts reserved for SC were filled up by SC candidates and due to non-availability of suitable candidates, one post of OBC category was carried forward. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the selection for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Irrigation Department is governed by the statutory Service Rules known as “Uttar Pradesh Engineer Service (Irrigation Department) (Group B) Service Rules, 1993” (in short, the Rules 1993). Sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of Rules 1993 clearly postulates that it is incumbent upon the Commission to prepare the merit list of total requisitioned posts and thereafter 25% additional names are to be forwarded to the Appointing Authority. He submitted that the objections raised by the respondents precisely on the basis of G.O 1999, that the wait list is not prepared in the combined selection except in single cadre post, could not be sustainable and the same is in direct conflict with the Rules 1993. In support of his argument, he has placed his reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 32416 of 2010 (Dr. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others) in which it was held that the policy of the State Government for not preparing wait list is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and is violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others) in which it was held that the policy of the State Government for not preparing wait list is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and is violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereinafter : “In the present case, we do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the State that even if waiting list was prepared, it operates only for a period of one year as in this case the waiting list was singed by three members on 12.8.2009 and was approved in the meeting of the Board of the Commission on 21.8.2009. The waiting list was treated to be valid on 21.8.2009 and was operative upto 21.9.2010, within a period of one year. Shri Vinod Kumar Lavania was offered appointment, who did not join upto 11.3.2010. The petitioner made application under the Right to Information Act on 12.5.2009 and filed this writ petition on 21.5.2010. All these dates in which the petitioner’s right has matured and was making claims was within the period of one year. On the aforesaid discussion and the reasons given by us as above, the writ petition is allowed. The State Government is directed to requisition the post on which Shri Vinod Kumar Lavania did not join from the U.P. Public Service Commission within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education (Ayush), U.P. Government Secretariat, Lucknow and Director, Ayurved and Unani Service, U.P. Government 9th floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow. The U.P. Public Service Commission shall forward the name of the petitioner to the State Government within two weeks, thereafter. The petitioner will be given appointment as expeditiously as possible and not later than two months from the date the petitioner’s name is forwarded by the Commission. The documents presented before us in sealed cover are returned to Shri M.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission in Court today, putting them back in the sealed cover.” 5. The documents presented before us in sealed cover are returned to Shri M.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission in Court today, putting them back in the sealed cover.” 5. It has also been informed that against the said decision, the State of U.P. has proceeded to file a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC-10604/2013 and the Apex Court vide an order dated 26.7.2013 has dismissed the Special Leave Petition with following observations : “Delay condoned. This petition is directed against order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Appeal No. 32416 of 2010 whereby a direction was given for appointment of respondent No. 1 as Lecturer in Government Ayurvedic College against the vacancy which remained unfilled due to non-joining of Dr. Vinod Kumar Lavania. We have heard Shri P.N. Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the record. In our opinion, the High Court did not commit any error by directing the appointment of respondent No. 1 against the unfilled post which was earlier offered to Dr. Vinod Kumar Lavania. Learned senior counsel argued that the State Government had taken a policy decision not to operate the waiting list and, as such, respondent No. 1 is not entitled to be appointed against the vacancy which remained unfilled due to non-joining of Dr. Vinod Kumar Lavania. In our view, the policy decision taken by the State Government does not have any bearing on the case of respondent No. 1 because he acquired a vested right to be appointed against the advertised post which remained unfilled due to non-joining of the candidate who was more meritorious than him. It is neither the pleaded case of the petitioners nor it has been argued before us that Dr. Vinod Kumar Lavania had joined the service and then resigned. Rather, it is the admitted case of the parties that one of the advertised posts remained unfilled due to non-joining of the selected candidate. This being the position, the concept of waiting list cannot be brought in picture for defeating the legitimate right of respondent No. 1 appointed against the unfilled post. With the above observation, the special leave petition is dismissed. This being the position, the concept of waiting list cannot be brought in picture for defeating the legitimate right of respondent No. 1 appointed against the unfilled post. With the above observation, the special leave petition is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to implement the order passed by the High Court within a period of four weeks from today and submit a report in the Registry of the High Court. The Registry is directed to send copy of this order to respondent No. 1 by registered post at the address mentioned in the memo of special leave petition.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the precise objection raised by the respondents had been negated by the Division Bench in Dr. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava’s case (supra), and the same had been affirmed by the Apex Court. Therefore, the present writ petition is also liable to be allowed on the same terms. 7. On the other hand, Shri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Commission has opposed the writ petition with vehemence and placed his reliance on Government Order dated 31.1.1994 (in short, the GO 1994) and the Government Order dated 15.11.1999 (in short the GO 1999). In support of his argument, he submitted that as per GO 1994, the life of the select list was only for one year and since the result was declared on 10th March, 2011 and once the last recommendation was made by the Commission in the last week of July, 2011, therefore, no recommendation could be made by the Commission against the said selection in the light of GO 1999. He further made submission that in the present matter, admittedly no wait list had been prepared and consequently the State Government had rescinded and modified the earlier GO 1994 through subsequent GO 1999 wherein the State Government had taken a prudent decision not to prepare any wait list except in single cadre post. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to claim that his name is liable to be sent by the Commission to the State Government. He has further drawn attention to the Court that the petitioner himself on his own wisdom had proceeded to file the writ petition in March, 2012 after one year from declaration of the result in question. He has further drawn attention to the Court that the petitioner himself on his own wisdom had proceeded to file the writ petition in March, 2012 after one year from declaration of the result in question. The petitioner has not approached to the Court within reasonable time and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 8. Shri Nisheeth Yadav has also placed his reliance on the age limit, which was provided as per advertisement 2007, to the extent that the incumbents must has attained the age of 21 years and should not cross the age of 35 years on July 1, 2007 i.e. they must have not been born earlier than July 2, 1972 and not later than July 1, 1985. Further he has placed reliance on the relaxation in upper age limit wherein upper age limit, in case of candidates, who is trainee, shall be granted by one year for irrigation departments. Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner is 1.7.1971 and even if it is assumed that being a diploma holder, one year relaxation was accorded in his favour, the same was applicable only upto 2.7.1971. Therefore, on the face of record, the petitioner’s case does not fall under advertisement 2007 and he was overage. Now this Court may only examine his candidature against the advertisement 2004. 9. Learned counsel for the Commission has also drawn attention of the Court regarding requisite information, which were provided to the petitioner on 31.3.2011 under (The) Right to Information Act, 2005 wherein it was categorically informed to the petitioner that for advertisement 2004 cut of marks for general category candidates was 442.76 and the cut of marks for general category candidates for the advertisement 2007 was 404.79 and the petitioner could only score 389.29 marks and as such, he could not get his placement in the merit list and he does not have any indefeasible right to claim that his name was required to be recommended against the said posts. He submits that ordinarily the advertisement merely amounts to an invitation to eligible candidates to apply for the recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Whereas in the present case admittedly the petitioner was not selected candidate. He has obtained much lowers marks than the cut of marks of last selected candidate in general category. Whereas in the present case admittedly the petitioner was not selected candidate. He has obtained much lowers marks than the cut of marks of last selected candidate in general category. In these circumstances, no indulgence is required to be made in the matter. He has placed reliance on the judgments in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 ; State of Rajasthan and others v. Jagdish Chopra, (2007) 8 SCC 161 ; Aryavrat Gramin Bank v. Vijay Shankar Shukla, (2007) 12 SCC 413 ; U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2007(5) ADJ 280 (DB); Km. Kaniz Begum v. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur and others, 2007(5) ADJ 292 and Writ A No. 32416 of 2010 (Dr. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 18.10.2012 in support of his submission. 10. Apply the aforesaid legal principle in the case in hand, Shri Nisheeth Yadav, appearing for the Commission has made a statement at the bar that the Commission has again advertised the posts in the year 2013 vide advertisement No. A-8/E-1/2013 dated 24.12.2013 including the carried forward vacancy and as such, once the advertisement has been made, candidates have applied, therefore, at this stage no interference can be made. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to re-produce Government orders dated 31.1.1994 and 15.11.1999 as under : mRrj izns'k 'kklu dkfeZd vuqHkkx&4 la[;k&1760&vk@47&dk&4&93&28&5&1980 y[kuÅ] fnukaad 31 tuojh] 1994 dk;kZy;&Kki v?kksgLrk{kjh dks ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr izfr;ksfxrkRed ijh{kkvksa rFkk vU; p;uksa ds vk/kkj ij p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;qfDr iznku djus] dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus] fuf'pr vof/k esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k u djus ij vH;FkZu fujLr fd;s tkus ,oa izrh{kk lwph ds mi;ksx gsrq le; fuèkZkfjr djus vkfn ds laca/k esa 'kklukns'k fnukad 29-8-92 tkjh fd;k FkkA mDr 'kklukns'k ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus esa dfri; O;ogkfjd dfBukb;ka 'kklu ds laKku esa vk jgh gS] v% 'kklu }kjk mDr O;ogkfjd dfBukb;ksa ds fuokj.kkFkZ lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;s x;s gSa%& ¼1½ foHkkxksa }kjk miyC/k inksa dh lgh x.kuk lqfuf'pr djus ds mijkUr gh vk;ksx dks vf/k;kpu Hkstk tk;A vf/k;kpu Hksts tkus ds mijkUr mf/k;kfpr fjfDr;ksa ds fo:| tks p;fur vH;FkhZ lfEefyr ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij foHkkx dks miyC?k djk;s tk;saxs] foHkkx dks mUgsa fu;qfDr iznku djuh gh gksxhA flok; mu ekeyksa ds tgak lacaf/kr foHkkx@laLFkk@laxBu iw.kZ :i ls lekIr dj fn;k x;k gks ;k tgak ,dy ij ds fy;s vk;ksftr p;u ds vk/kkj ij p;fur vH;FkhZ vk;ksx us laLrqr fd;k gks ogak vf/k;kfpr in gh lekIr dj fn;k x;k gksA lacaf/kr foHkkx@laLFkk@laxBu dks lekIr fd;s tkus vFkok vf/k;kfor inksa dks gh lekIr fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; 'kklu }kjk fy;s tkus dh n'kk esa vf/k;kfpr inksa ij p;u dh dk;Zokgh rRdky jksdus gsrq foHkkxksa }kjk vk;ksx ls lEidZ fd;k tk;sxk vkSj ;fn p;fur vH;FkhZ dh laLrqfr foHkkx esa izkIr gks xbZ gks] rRdky vk;ksx dks lwfpr fd;k tk;sxk] rkfd ;fn lfEefyr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij p;u gqvk gks rks vk;ksx }kjk lacaf/kr vH;FkhZ ds fo”k; esa le; ls fj'kQfyax dh dk;Zokgh dj la'kksf/kr laLrqfr@laLrqfr;ka dh tk ldsA ijUrq tgka U;k;ky; ds vkns'kksa ds vk/kkj ij vf/k;kfpr inksa dks vU;Fkk Hkj fy;k x;k gks ogak vk;ksx }kjk laLrqr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;qfDr iznku fd;s tkus dh ck/;rk u gksxhA ¼2½ lacaf/kr foHkkx vkoaVu izkIr gksus ds rhu ekg ds vUnj fu;qfDr vkns'k djuk lqfuf'pr djsaxs rFkk vH;FkhZ dks dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus gsrq ,d ekg dk le; fn;k tk;sxk tks vifjgk;Z ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,d ekg rd vkSj c<+k;k tk ldrk gSA rRi'pkr vH;FkhZ dk vH;FkZu fujLr djus dk vkns'k djrs gq, vH;FkZu fujLr djus laca/kh vkns'k dh ,d izfr vk;ksx dks vH;FkZu fujLr fd;s x;s vH;FkhZ@vH;fFkZ;ksa ds Lfkku ij izrh{kk lwph ls uke 'kh?kz miyC/k djkus ds vuqjks/k ds lkFk iszf"kr dh tk;sxhA mDr vkns'k dh ,d izfr dkfeZd vuqHkkx&4 dks Hkh miyCèk djk;h tk;sxhA ¼3½ LokLF; ijh{k.k rFkk iqfyl osjhfQds'ku lekukUrj :i ls fd;k tk;sxk] ftlls blesa foyEc u gksA ¼4½ izrh{kk lwph izdkf'kr ugha dh tk;sxh rFkk can fyQkQksa esa vk;ksx esa miyC/k jgsxhA vko';drkuqlkj vk;ksx }kjk izrh{kk lwph esa ls vH;fFkZ;ksa ds uke 'kklu dks ;Fkkle; miyC/k djk;s tk;saxsA ¼5½ izrh{kk lwph dsoy ,d o”kZ ds fy, oSèk gksxh pkgs izfr o"kZ gksus okys izfr;ksfxrkRed ijh{kk ls lacaf/kr gks vFkok fdlh p;u fo'ks"k lsA dfri; ekeyksa esa ;g ns[kk x;k gS fd foHkkxksa }kjk fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds vUnj vk;ksx ls izrh{kk lwph ls uke ekax fy, tkus ij Hkh vk;ksx }kjk fu/kkZfjr ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa izrh{kk lwph ls uke miyC/k ugha djk;s tkrsA vr% mDr leL;k ds lek/kku gsrq ftu ekeyksa esa foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds vUnj ;fn vk;ksx ls izrh{kk lwph ls uke ekax fy, x;s gksa] fdUrq vk;ksx us fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa uke miyC/k u djk;k gks] ,sls ekeyksa esa izrh{kk lwph ,d o"kZ ds ckn Hkh oS/k gksxhA ¼6½ ;fn fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa izrh{kk lwph dk mi;ksx ugha gksrk gS vFkok fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa foHkkxkssa }kjk vk;ksx ls uke ugha ekax fy;k tkrk gS rks tks Hkh fjfDr;ka jg tk;saaxh og vxys o"kZ ds fy, vxszuhr ekuh tk;saxhA d`i;k mi;qZDrkuqlkj dk;Zokgh izR;sd Lrj ij lqfuf'pr djk;h tk;sA mDr vkns'k rkRdkfyd izHkko ls ykxw gksaxs rFkk bl laca/k esa iwoZ esa lHkh 'kklukns'k fujLr le>s tk;saxsA vkj0ch0Hkk"dj lfpoA mRrj izns'k 'kklu dkfeZd vuqHkkx&4 la[;k&28@5@80&dk@4&1999 y[kuÅ] fnukaad 15 uoEcj] 1999 dk;kZy;&Kki yksd lsok vk;ksx] m0 iz0 }kjk vk;ksftr izfr;ksfxrkRed ijh{kkvksa rFk vU; p;uksa ds vk/kkj ij p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;qfDr iznku djus ,oa izrh{kk lwph ls uke ekaxus lEca/kh iwoZ esa fuxZr 'kklukns'kksa ds vuqikyu esa vkus okyh dfBukb;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] 'kklu }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS] fd ,dy laoxksZ ds inksa dks NksMdj] vU; leLr lfEefyr lsokvksa ,oa vU; p;uksa esa izrh{kk lwph dk fuekZ.k ugh fd;k tk;sxk vkSj u gh fdlh izdkj dh fj'kQfyax dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA 2- mi;qZDr ds lEca/k esa iwoZ esa fuxrZ leLr 'kklukns'kksa dks vodzfer djrs gq,] 'kklu }kjk fy;s x;s vU; egRoiw.kZ fu.kZ; fuEuor gS% ¼1½ fdlh p;u o"kZ fos'ks"k esa ?kfVr gksus okyh fjfDr;ksa dh lgh x.kuk lqfuf'pr djus ds mijkUr gh vk;ksx dks vf/k;kpu Hkstk tk;A vf/k;kpu Hksts tkus ds mijkUr ;FkklEHko fjfDr;ksa esa dksbZ ifjorZu u fd;k tk;A ¼2½ p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dh laLrqfr;ka izkIr gksus ds mijkUr mUgsa dk;ZHkkj vo'; xzg.k djk;k tk;] flok; mu ekeyksa ds tgka lEcafèkr foHkkx ;k laLFkk ;k laxBu dks iw.kZ:i ls lekIr dj fn;k x;k gks vFkok fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ vU;Fkk vkns'k fn;s x;s gksaA ¼3½ lEcaf/kr foHkkxksa }kjk laLrqfr;ka ;k vkoaVu izkIr gksus ds rhu ekg ds vUnj fu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh djuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tk; rFkk vH;FkhZ dks izFker% dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus gsrq ,d ekg dk le; iznku fd;k tk;] ftls vifjgk;Z ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,d ekg rd vkSj ¼4½ p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa ds pfj= lR;kiu ,oa LokLFk ijh{k.k djkus ds mijkUr gh fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd, tk;aA ¼5½ fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k u djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vH;FkZu fujLr djrs gq,] ?kfVr fufDr;ksa dks vkxkeh p;u o"kZ gsrq vxzsuhr dj fn;k tk;A ¼6½ p;u lwph dk mi;ksx mlh p;u o"kZ dh fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) fd;k tk;] ftlds fy, vf/k;kpu Hkstk x;k gks@p;u fd;k x;k gksA 3- mi;qZDr vkns'k rRdky izHkko ls izHkkoh gksxsaA 4- mi;qZDr vkns'kksa dk izR;sd Lrj ij dMkbZ ls vuqikyu lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A g0 lq/khj dqekj] lfpoA 13. A perusal of the aforesaid G.O. would show that in order to streamline the process of recruitment pursuant to combined competitive examination conducted by the Commission involving number of services, certain directions were issued from time to time. On the recommendation made by the Commission in respect to the selected candidates, the Government used to forward recommendation to the respective Departments, wherefrom the appointment letters are issued by the competent authority to the selected candidates, whose names are recommended by the Commission after completing all other formalities, like character verification, police verification of antecedents and medical examination etc. However, sometimes candidates offered appointment failed to join service for various reasons and the vacancy remain unfilled. The concerned department informs the Government about non-joining of such selected candidates, who were issued letters offering appointment and thereafter only the Government used to seek further recommendation of the Commission from the waiting list, if any. Some times the entire process used to take lot of time and in the meantime the next recruitment process used to start causing a practical difficulty in making the said recruitment final. To mitigate such a situation, the State Government issued G.O. 1994 communicating its decision namely: (1) where the recommendation has been received from the Commission, the concerned department has to issue letter of appointment except where the department itself has been abolished or where the selection has been made by the Commission for single post or notified post and it has been abolished. (2) Such appointment letters shall be issued by the concerned department after receiving allotment within three months thereof and the candidates shall be offered one month’s time to join extendable by one month for unavoidable circumstances. (3) Thereafter, the candidature, in case of non-joining, shall be cancelled and the copy of such order shall be sent to the Commission with the request to send names from the waiting list. (4) The waiting list shall not be published by the Commission but shall be kept by it in a sealed cover and required names shall be sent to the Government as and when requisitioned from it. (5) Such waiting list shall be valid for one year only where the recruitment process is to be held on annual basis or if it a special selection. (5) Such waiting list shall be valid for one year only where the recruitment process is to be held on annual basis or if it a special selection. (6) However, in case where the requisition has been sent to the Commission against unfilled vacancies requesting to send additional names from waiting list within a period of one year, in such case, the life of wait list shall be treated to have been extended beyond one year, inasmuch as, the Commission may send recommendation even after expiry of one year. (7) Where no information has been received from the concerned department requisitioning any candidate from the wait list, the unfilled vacancies shall be carried forward and be filled in the next recruitment. Subsequently, a query was made as to whether a vacancy occurred during the validity of life time of the wait list due to resignation of a candidate who was appointed pursuant to the recommendation made by the Commission, would such a vacancy be filled in from the waiting list. By a G.O. No. 28/5/80-Ka-4-1997 dated 23rd December, 1997 the Government conveyed its decision that once a candidate, who has been offered appointment joins, the vacancy in the concerned recruitment comes to an end and if such a person subsequently resign, even within one year from the date of preparation of the select list, such vacancy being a fresh one occurring in a different recruitment year, shall not be filed in from the wait list. 14. It appears that the practice of filling in vacancy within one year from the waiting list pursuant to Government Order 1994 caused a lot of litigation and other practical problems. Consequently, the State Government had proceeded to issue further G.O.1999, which appears to have been issued by the State Government in the light of experience it had faced in calling the names from the wait list, to adjust the inter-se disputes between the candidates in respective services and also lot of litigation. In the present matter the heavy reliance has been made on the Government orders and as per the Government order dated 31.1.1994 it is admitted by the parties that the life of wait list prescribed therein is only for one year. 15. We have anxious in deep consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. In the present matter the heavy reliance has been made on the Government orders and as per the Government order dated 31.1.1994 it is admitted by the parties that the life of wait list prescribed therein is only for one year. 15. We have anxious in deep consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Certain facts between the parties are undisputed namely that the recruitment in question has become final and the result was declared by the Commission on 10.3.2011 and the last recommendation was sent by the Commission to the State Government in the last week of July, 2011. It is also relevant to indicate that in the present matter, admittedly no wait list had been prepared by the Commission and at no point of time the State Government had asked any requisition from the Commission as per G.O. 1994 and further not to carry forward the vacant posts, which were kept vacant on account of non-submission of NOC by few candidates but contrary they have proceeded for fresh recruitment in the year 2013. It is trite of law that even a selected candidate does not have any indefeasible right to get an appointment merely for the reason that his name finds place in the select list. 16. In Sri Kant Tripathi v. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 3757 , it was held “An applicant, whose name appears in the wait list, does not get an enforceable right for being appointed to a post......” In Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (1997) 8 SCC 488 , the Court held “ The candidates in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except to the limited extent that when a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does not join for some reason and the waiting list is still operative.” Subsequently, in State of Bihar and others v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, JT 2006(12) SC 304, after referring to various earlier judgments on the issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court held “ The decisions noticed hereinbefore are authorities for the proposition that even the wait list must be acted upon having regard to the terms of the advertisement and in any event cannot remain operative beyond the prescribed period.” 17. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Gobardhan and another, AIR 1997 SC 1840 , while upholding the contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation that the wait list candidate has no right, the Hon’ble Apex Court held “since the Corporation itself has taken decision to appoint a person from the wait list, such a wait list candidate is entitled to be appointed”. This view has again been reiterated in State of J & K and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others, 2005(1) SCC 148 and the Hon’ble Apex Court held “ As it clearly spelt from the quoted portion, the Government can by a policy decision appoint people from the waiting list.” 18. In Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad and others, AIR 2004 SC 1724 , the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld non-preparation of any wait list where rules do not provide for preparation of a wait list and it was held that preparation of a wait list is not at all obligatory or mandatory unless the recruitment rules provide for preparation of a wait list in addition to the select list. 19. Thus whether a person in the wait list against the existing vacancy should be appointed or not and the period for which such a wait list shall be operative is a policy decision and is within the administrative authority of the Government. It is always open to the Government to take a policy decision in this regard. 20. We find it useful to refer the Division Bench judgment in Brij Mohan v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41612 of 1998 decided on 18.1.2002 wherein considering the very G.O. dated 31.1.1994 this Court held as under: “We do not agree with this submission for the simple reason that the G.O. dated 31.1.1994 clearly mentions that the waiting list will only survive beyond one year if within that period of one year the concerned department requests to send the names from the waiting list. In the present case the concerned department wanted 63 names from the waiting list and these were supplied by the Commission. No further intimation was sent by the concerned department within one year and hence the waiting list has been exhausted. In the present case the concerned department wanted 63 names from the waiting list and these were supplied by the Commission. No further intimation was sent by the concerned department within one year and hence the waiting list has been exhausted. In our opinion, the waiting list has come to an end after the expiry of one year and the same cannot be utilized now FIR filling up more vacancies. These vacancies can now only be filled up by another examination held by the Commission.” 21. Same view has been taken by this Court in Arjun Prasad Pathak and others v. The State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1204 of 1998 decided on 31st October, 2002. 22. From the aforesaid decisions, it is evident that a wait list candidate can seek appointment only if such a provision has been made under the Rules or an executive order having force of law or the scheme of appointment enforced by the authorities provide for making appointment from the wait list, in case vacancy remains unfilled on account of non-joining of the selected candidates. However, it is neither obligatory nor mandatory for the employer to prepare simultaneously a wait list or to keep a wait list intact as and when any selection is made besides the select list, unless a provision is made making it obligatory to prepare a wait list. Whereas admittedly no wait list has ever been prepared by the Commission. 23. Heavy reliance has been made on the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Dr. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others (supra) wherein the Court has proceeded in the matter and allowed the writ petition with following observations : “In the present case, we do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the State that even if waiting list was prepared, it operates only for a period of one year as in this case the waiting list was singed by three members on 12.8.2009 and was approved in the meeting of the Board of the Commission on 21.8.2009. The waiting list was treated to be valid on 21.8.2009 and was operative upto 21.9.2010, within a period of one year. Shri Vinod Kumar Lavania was offered appointment, who did not join upto 11.3.2010. The waiting list was treated to be valid on 21.8.2009 and was operative upto 21.9.2010, within a period of one year. Shri Vinod Kumar Lavania was offered appointment, who did not join upto 11.3.2010. The petitioner made application under the Right to Information Act on 12.5.2009 and filed this writ petition on 21.5.2010. All these dates in which the petitioner’s right has matured and was making claims was within the period of one year. On the aforesaid discussion and the reasons given by us as above, the writ petition is allowed. The State Government is directed to requisition the post on which Shri Vinod Kumar Lavania did not join from the U.P. Public Service Commission within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education (Ayush), U.P. Government Secretariat, Lucknow and Director, Ayurved and Unani Service, U.P. Government 9th floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow. The U.P. Public Service Commission shall forward the name of the petitioner to the State Government within two weeks, thereafter. The petitioner will be given appointment as expeditiously as possible and not later than two months from the date the petitioner’s name is forwarded by the Commission. The documents presented before us in sealed cover are returned to Shri M.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission in Court today, putting them back in the sealed cover.” 24. Even for the sake of argument in the case in hand, what we find from the record that once the petitioner obtained lower marks in general category and no vacancy was available in the general category, then it is merely a futile exercise to scrutinize whether the GO 1994 or GO 1999 was applicable or not. 25. In the aforementioned matter admittedly wait list was prepared, the same was signed by three members and approved in the meeting of the board of the Commission on 21.8.2009 and as such, the wait list was treated to be valid on 21.8.2009 and was operative upto 20.8.2010 for one year. The facts of the present case are entirely different. 25. In the aforementioned matter admittedly wait list was prepared, the same was signed by three members and approved in the meeting of the board of the Commission on 21.8.2009 and as such, the wait list was treated to be valid on 21.8.2009 and was operative upto 20.8.2010 for one year. The facts of the present case are entirely different. Whereas in the present matter in pursuance of the advertisement 2004 it has been brought on record to indicate that only two posts have been carried forward under the ST category and the advertisement 2008 it is not disputed that date of birth of the petitioner is admittedly 1.7.1972 and even it is assumed that he was entitled for one year age relaxation as per the advertisement 2008, then he should not be born prior to 2.7.1971 and as such, admittedly the petitioner was overage as per advertisement 2008. Therefore, he is not entitled for any benefit in pursuance of the advertisement 2008 now his candidature is liable to be considered only for advertisement 2004. 26. This is undisputed fact that no general category vacancies were available in pursuance of the advertisement 2004 and admittedly the Commission has not prepared any wait list. As per the record available, it is reflected that cut off marks of the advertisement of 2004 for general category was 442.76, whereas the petitioner had scored only 389.29 and as such, he was not selected candidate. Admittedly 16 vacancies of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) were advertised out which 08 vacancies were earmarked for general category and against 08 unreserved vacancies, two vacancies were filled up by candidates of OBC category having obtained higher marks and got selected in general category and remaining 06 unreserved vacancies were filled up by the general category; 4 candidates were recommended against the OBC category and against 4 posts of SC/ST category, only two persons were recommended under SC/ST category and 2 posts could not be filled up and the same was carried forward, and as such no general vacancy was available. This much is also reflected that subsequently an advertisement was also made in the year 2013 including the carried forward vacancies. 27. It is not the case of the petitioner that any incumbent below him in the list has been appointed. This much is also reflected that subsequently an advertisement was also made in the year 2013 including the carried forward vacancies. 27. It is not the case of the petitioner that any incumbent below him in the list has been appointed. In fact, there is nothing in the writ petition to show that any appointment has been made from the list of merit. 28. Be that as it may, a wait list candidate has no right to seek appointment if the employer has not chosen to make such an appointment. In Sri Kant Tripathi v. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 3757 , it was held : “An applicant, whose name appears in the wait list, does not get an enforceable right for being appointed to a post....”. 29. In the case of U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2007(5) ADJ 280 (DB), it was held : “A wait list candidate does not have any indefeasible right to get appointment merely for the reason that his name finds place in the wait list.” 30. This Court in taking the aforesaid view relied upon the decision in Ved Prakash Tripathi v. State of U.P., 2001(1) ESC 317 and Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (1997) 8 SCC 488 and held that even a select list candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment. In para-31 of the judgment in U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another (supra) this Court has further held as under : “Moreover, even in the case of a select list candidate, the law is well-settled that such a candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment merely for the reason that his name is included in the select list as the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancy and it can always be left vacant or unfilled for a valid reason.”. 31. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we are refrained to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 32. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. ———————