JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri R.K. Nokulsana, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Danny H., Advocate, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Shri A. Rommel, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are nine in number praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint them to the post of Surveyor in the Department of Works, Government of Manipur on the basis of the result of the DPC declared vide Notification dated 27-09-2001 issued by the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 2. 3.1 According to the petitioners, they are all unemployed citizens who have passed Matriculate/HSLC with certificate courses in the trade of Surveyor from the Industrial Training Institute, Imphal / Diploma in Civil Engineering from the Government Polytechnic, Imphal. They are eligible for appointment to the post of Surveyor, since they have fulfilled the essential qualifications prescribed for it in the Recruitment Rules, 1993. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Department of Works for appointment of nine posts of Surveyor, they duly applied for it. However, the date fixed for the interview was postponed vide a Notification dated 06-09-1999 for the reason best known to the respondents. Another Notification dated 24-09-1999 was issued by the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 2 herein informing the concerned candidates that the postponed DPC had been re-fixed on 21-10-1999 and many candidates including the petitioners appeared in the interview. 3.2 For the reason best known to the respondents, the result of the said DPC held on 21-10-1999 was not declared for more than a year and being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, three petitioners approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 197 of 2001, praying for declaration of the result, wherein the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench while issuing notice, was pleased to pass an interim order dated 23-02-2001 directing the official respondents therein to declare the result of the DPC held on 21-10-1999 within three weeks there from. In compliance with the said court’s order dated 23-02-2001, the result of the said DPC was declared and in the select list, the names of the petitioners appeared at serial Nos.1 to 9. In compliance with the said court’s order dated 23-02-2001, the result of the said DPC was declared and in the select list, the names of the petitioners appeared at serial Nos.1 to 9. When the petitioners were not offered for appointment even after about four months from the date of declaration of the result, they made an enquiry to which they were informed that no appointment could be made on account of ban being imposed by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur on direct recruitment and declaration of DPC results vide its order dated 06-11-1999 which was issued pursuant to the order dated 03-11-1999 of the Finance Department. The instant writ petition had been filed by the petitioners contending that the action of the respondents in not appointing them was/is quite arbitrary, discriminatory and not tenable in the eye of law mainly on two grounds that while the State Government had exempted the aforesaid ban on holding DPC for direct recruitment and declaration of DPC result in respect of various Departments including the Departments of Home, Education, Health etc., it had failed to do so in respect of the Department of Works and that the fact that the post of Surveyor was not touched at all while taking a decision for down-sizing of Departments in the form of reduction of the number of posts and abolition of posts, had made it very clear that the post of Surveyor is necessary in the Department of Works. 4. The instant writ petition is contested by the respondent No. 2, the Chief Engineer by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that the result of the DPC could not be declared because of the ban order dated 06-11-1999 issued by the Chief Secretary, Manipur and followed by the order dated 19-03-2001 issued by the Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of Manipur. Since the ban had not been lifted, the Department was not in a position to issue appointment orders. The result of the DPC was declared only in compliance with the court’s order. When the State Government issued an order dated 19-06-2000 extending the terms of various temporary posts in the Department of Works, the post of Surveyor was not included thereby resulting in no vacancy in respect of the post of Surveyor. However, a letter dated 06-10-2001 was addressed to the Addl. When the State Government issued an order dated 19-06-2000 extending the terms of various temporary posts in the Department of Works, the post of Surveyor was not included thereby resulting in no vacancy in respect of the post of Surveyor. However, a letter dated 06-10-2001 was addressed to the Addl. Chief Secretary (Works), Government of Manipur with a request to revive the said posts so as to enable it to appoint the successful candidates and no reply thereof was received by it. An affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed on behalf of the State respondent, respondent No. 1 taking a similar stand as that of the respondent No. 2 and in addition thereto, relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220 , it has been contended that the petitioners have no indefeasible right to claim for appointment on the basis of the recommendation made by the DPC and that the policy decision of the State Government, by way of imposing ban on direct recruitment as austerity measure, had been upheld by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench vide its order dated 05-02-2004 passed in W.P. (C) No. 402 of 2001, All Manipur Graduate (Arts & Science) Teachers DPC Faced Candidate’s Association, 1999 Vs. State of Manipur. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners, after having applied for appointment to the post of Surveyor, appeared in the interview held on 21-10-1999 by the DPC. When the result thereof was declared in compliance with the court’s order, they were found to have been selected but the appointment orders were not issued on account of the ban being imposed by the State Government on direct recruitment as an austerity measure. It has been submitted by Shri R.K. Nokulsana, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that despite ban being imposed by the State Government, it has exempted ban in respect of various Departments and appointments have been made accordingly whereas it has failed to do so in respect of the present case and therefore, the action of the State Government in not appointing the petitioners as Surveyor is arbitrary and discriminatory. To substantiate his argument, he has referred to the letter dated 18-12-1999 addressed to the concerned officers by the Addl. To substantiate his argument, he has referred to the letter dated 18-12-1999 addressed to the concerned officers by the Addl. Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur and Government orders dated 06-10-2001 issued by the Commissioner (Health) and dated 19-02-2002 issued by the Deputy Secretary (HE), Government of Manipur, copies of which are placed on record. On the other hand, Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that although the petitioners have been selected, they have no right to claim for appointment; that since the appointments have not been made because of the ban on direct recruitment, this court cannot direct the respondents either to appoint the petitioners or to lift the ban and that the select list is not valid now, since it has lapsed long back. 6. The existence of the said documents relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners can be said to be not in dispute for the reason that there is no denial about them in the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, the State Government, nothing is mentioned as to why and under what circumstances, the said letter dated 18-12-1999 was addressed to all the concerned informing that the State Government had decided to give exemption to the Departments of Education and Home. But in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, the Chief Engineer, it has been submitted that although it had no knowledge about the issuance of the Government orders, it was clear from the perusal of the said documents that the same were issued with the approval of the cabinet. On perusal of the said documents, it appears to this court also that the said documents were issued on the basis of the decisions taken by the State Government. It is the prerogative and domain of the State Government to take appropriate decisions depending upon the circumstances prevailing at the time of taking the decisions and in case there is no malafide while taking the said decisions or the decisions have not taken away any vested right, they cannot be interfered with by the court. It is the prerogative and domain of the State Government to take appropriate decisions depending upon the circumstances prevailing at the time of taking the decisions and in case there is no malafide while taking the said decisions or the decisions have not taken away any vested right, they cannot be interfered with by the court. Moreover, it is the specific stand of the State Government that as regards the petitioners, no appointment can be made because of ban on direct recruitment and to lift or not to lift ban is a matter to be decided by the State Government. In this regard, this court has no role to play at all in the absence of the action of the respondents being malafide and arbitrary. No sufficient material has been brought on record by the petitioners to show that while taking the decisions by the State Government to exempt ban in respect of the Departments of Education, Home, Health etc., it has infringed any of their rights or its action is malafide and arbitrary. Over and above, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General has some force in view of the various decisions, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts, which are relied upon by him. In the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 , a question whether a candidate whose name appears in the merit list on the basis of a competitive examination, acquires indefeasible right of appointment as a government servant if vacancy exists, was referred to a Constitution Bench for examination by a Division Bench. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “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. 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. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha1, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab.” Similarly, reliance has been placed in the case of Ludhiaana Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Amrik Singh reported in (2003) 10 SCC 136 wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is well settled by now that a person whose name is said to find place in a select panel has no vested right to get appointed to the post in spite of vacancies existing. Thus, having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and after having perused the materials placed on record, this court is of the view that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash (supra) will apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and since the petitioners are found to have no vested right to get themselves appointed as Surveyor, no writ of Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioners can be issued against the respondents. 7. One other point which the learned Additional Advocate General has emphasised, is that since the select list has lapsed, it cannot be given effect to in terms of the provisions of the O.M. issued by the State Government. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & ors. Vs. Md. Kalimuddin & ors. reported in (1996) 2 SCC 7 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “6. From the aforementioned facts it is clear that the Selection Committee had prepared the panel or list on 19-01-1991. Vs. Md. Kalimuddin & ors. reported in (1996) 2 SCC 7 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “6. From the aforementioned facts it is clear that the Selection Committee had prepared the panel or list on 19-01-1991. The first batch of 98 appointments was made therefrom. The reservation rules were then modified. The second batch as per the said modified rules was sent later on 5-6-1991. But the panel was the one prepared on 19-01-1991. Part III of the Rules provides for ‘Appointment and Promotion’. Clause (6) thereof reads: “Every teacher will be appointed on probation for two years. The list of candidates prepared for direct appointment will be valid for one year from the date of approval of the project by the Selection Committee.” The life or duration of the panel or list was, therefore, of one year. It, therefore, expired on 18-01-1992 by the force of the above-quoted rule. The Rule having been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, therefore, had statutory force. The appellant-State was, therefore, right in contending that continuance of the panel or list beyond one year would be a violation of the statutory rule and, therefore, illegal. Even the Court could not stop it from lapsing in exercise of judicial discretion unless its constitutional validity was questioned. There is no doubt that the petition was filed after the damage was done, i.e. after expiry of the period of one year. This contention of the State is unexceptionable.” On the other hand, the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that there is no provision in the recruitment rules about such select list being lapsed after one year and therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case. There can be no doubt about the law being laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case. On perusal of the pleadings, it is seen that it has not been pleaded at all nor has a copy of the said O.M. been filed by the respondents for consideration by this court. Therefore, there is no point of examining the applicability or otherwise of the said law in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. For the reasons stated herein above, the instant writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.