JUDGMENT By the Court.—(i) Order on the delay condonation application: These applications seek condonation of delay of about 100 to 140 days in filing the special appeals. Since the delay has satisfactorily been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation applications, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ii) Order on the memo of appeal : Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh and Vikram Bahadur Singh for the appellants and Sri Ashish Jaiswal and Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava for the respondents. 2. This batch of appeals with the consent of parties has been taken up for disposal together. 3. The appeals themselves emanate from certain interlocutory orders in terms of which the appellants have been directed to accord relief to the respondents in light of certain interim orders passed on separate writ petitions and in terms of which the appellants are liable to issue appointment letters to the respondent-writ petitioners. 4. The second category of orders with which these appeals are concerned are those wherein the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions finally with a direction to the appellants herein to issue appointment letters to the petitioners. 5. While Special Appeal Defective Nos. 605 of 2015, 606 of 2016, 609 of 2016, 611 of 2016, 613 of 2016 and 615 of 2016, pertain to interlocutory orders, Special Appeal Defective Nos. 604 of 2016, 612 of 2016, 614 of 2016 and 616 of 2016 relate to orders passed by the learned Single Judge finally disposing of the writ petition itself in terms aforementioned. 6. The dispute itself relates to the selection process which was undertaken by the appellants to fill up the post of Assistant Teachers in Maths and Science. The respondents are those candidates who had participated up to the fifth round of counseling. It appears that subsequent to the fifth round of counseling, a further exercise of counseling was undertaken by the appellants and it was only thereafter that a merit list was prepared. The cut off merit was apparently collated after the final round of counseling came to a close. It appears that subsequent to the fifth round of counseling, a further exercise of counseling was undertaken by the appellants and it was only thereafter that a merit list was prepared. The cut off merit was apparently collated after the final round of counseling came to a close. The grievance of the writ petitioners was that if the further counseling had not been held, the cut off merit would not have been revised and in such a situation they would have become entitled to be appointed to the post. 7. For clarity, one may usefully refer to the following facts. The learned Single Judge in Special Appeal Defective No. 616 of 2016 has noted that the respondent-petitioner had obtained quality point marks of 65.68. The last selected candidate in his category, however, as per the appellants had obtained quality point marks of 67.78. Similarly in Special Appeal Defective No. 609 of 2016, the respondent-petitioner therein had obtained 67.81 quality point marks whereas the last selected candidate in his category had obtained 70.59. From the above narration of fact it appears that the respondent petitioners have come to be non suited in terms of the final select list which was prepared only after the entire process of counseling had been completed. 8. When these appeals were initially taken up, we had called upon the learned counsel for the appellants to obtain instructions and produce before us the detailed facts and figure pertaining to the preparation of the merit list. The instructions have been placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellants and the following facts emerge therefrom. 9. The first table of the instructions sets out the details of the marks obtained by the respondent petitioners and the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in their respective category. The table shows that the last selected candidate in all cases have obtained quality point marks above that of the respondent-petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners, despite the repeated queries of the Court, was unable to establish or invite our attention to any material which may have even remotely indicated the appointment of any candidate who may have obtained quality point marks lesser than the respondent-petitioners. From the further tables that have been placed alongwith the instructions, we note that out of 91 posts earmarked for the general category, 87 posts have come to be filled. From the further tables that have been placed alongwith the instructions, we note that out of 91 posts earmarked for the general category, 87 posts have come to be filled. 4 seats are said to be earmarked for applicants who are entitled to be considered under special reservation. The selection of one candidate is stated to have been cancelled upon certain facts coming to light during the course of scrutiny of the declarations made by him. In the reserved category, the selection of five candidates is stated to have been cancelled on similar ground. 10. The issue which therefore arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judges were justified in issuing the directions - interim or final, in the above backdrop requiring the appellants to appoint the respondent-petitioners. 11. The filling of the posts in a selection process cannot be made to depend upon litigative persistence. From the material placed before us, it is not clear as to whether the respondent-petitioners would be entitled to be appointed against existing vacancies, if any, on the basis of merit. From the facts and figures which have been placed for our consideration, it is not clear as to how many candidates are available between 67.78 (marks obtained by the last candidate) and 65.68 (marks obtained by the respondent-petitioner in Special Appeal Defective No. 616 of 2016). Similar is the position when one views the marks obtained by the respondent-petitioner in Special Appeal No. 609 of 2016 and the marks of the last selected candidate. If there be a vacancy and a candidate has obtained marks higher than the respondent-petitioner, his claim cannot be negatived only on account of the fact that the respondent-petitioner approached this Court. The vacancies if any existing in the respective category must be filled strictly in accordance with the merit list which has been prepared by the appellants. This is further evident from the recital contained in the letter inviting the respondent petitioners to participate in the counseling which unequivocally held out that the inclusion of their names in the counseling list or the select list prepared immediately thereafter would not confer on them the right to claim appointment. 12. This is further evident from the recital contained in the letter inviting the respondent petitioners to participate in the counseling which unequivocally held out that the inclusion of their names in the counseling list or the select list prepared immediately thereafter would not confer on them the right to claim appointment. 12. More fundamentally, we note that the directions as issued by the learned Single Judges and which form subject-matter of challenge in these appeals would directly result in the unseating of the selected candidates in order to accommodate the respondent-petitioners. We, however, note that none of the selected candidates were arrayed as party respondents in the writ petitions. On this score also, we are of the considered view that the directions of the nature which are assailed in these special appeals could not have been issued. 13. From the material which has been placed for our consideration, we find that the writ petitions would be liable to be tried again and in light of the detailed facts and figures which have been placed before us. For this purpose we provide that the appellants shall now file a detailed affidavit bringing on record the facts and figures as disclosed in their instructions so as to enable the learned Single Judges to consider the entitlement of the respondent-writ petitioners afresh. 14. We accordingly allow the Special Appeals and set aside the judgment and orders of the learned Single Judges impugned before us. The writ petitions shall now stand restored back to the board of the learned Single Judges for decision afresh and in light of the observations made herein above.