JUDGMENT : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners, who are in the select list based upon the earlier advertisement dated 4 January 2013, belonging to reserved category, have challenged advertisement dated 12 May 2015 issued by the Respondent-Corporation whereby, the selection process for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) was advertised without exhausting the stated list dated 5 April 2013. The present Writ Petition is filed on 26 May 2015. The Respondent-Corporation has filed their reply on 10 July 2015 and resisted the claim on every aspect. 3. On 4 January 2013, advertisement was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, “the MCGM”) for the vacant posts in question. Out of available 294 vacant posts, 47 posts were for Scheduled Caste category. Call letters were issued by the MCGM to appear for online examination on 10 February 2013, which was accordingly held. On 15 April 2013, select list was prepared as per merit by the MCGM and was published accordingly. The said select list was valid for 1 year i.e. till 14 April 2014. The Commissioner has power to extend the period of validity of select list on proper justification as per MCGM Circular dated 12 December 1981. Petitioner No.1 was at Serial No.287 as against 294 vacant posts. 4. In the month of April, 2013, 1st batch of 189 candidates from the select list were given appointments on the respective posts. From March 2014 to May 2014, code of conduct was implemented for the Parliament Elections. Therefore, no appointment could be made from the select list. Again from August 2014 to October 2014 Code of conduct was implemented for the State Assembly Elections. Again no appointments could be made from the select list. On 4 December 2014, City Engineer submitted proposal for extension of validity period of the select list. As per his proposal 90 posts in issue are still vacant. After 5 April 2014, i.e. the expiry date of select list, 10 candidates from the very same select list were given appointments to the post in issue. These appointments are not questioned by the Petitioners. Various concerned authorities of MCGM recommended for extension of operation of the said select list in issue. 5. After 5 April 2014, i.e. the expiry date of select list, 10 candidates from the very same select list were given appointments to the post in issue. These appointments are not questioned by the Petitioners. Various concerned authorities of MCGM recommended for extension of operation of the said select list in issue. 5. On 16 February 2015, the Additional Commissioner (City) expressed an opinion not to grant extension to the operation of the said select list. On 24 February 2015, representation was made by the Petitioner to the Municipal Commissioner, but in vein. On 18 March 2015, Municipal Commissioner took a decision not to grant extension to the select list and to conduct fresh recruitment process. 6. On 12 May 2015, impugned advertisement for 217 posts was issued. On 18 May 2015, again the Petitioner filed representation, but in vein. Therefore, on 26 May 2015, present Petition is filed. 7. Admittedly, the select list dated 5 April 2013, had been prepared based upon the advertisement. The Petitioners were not appointed. The reasons so mentioned in the reply affidavit of the MCGM dated 10 July 2015 are clear in paragraph No. (f), which reads thus:- f) I say that as per the circular No. MRC/6761 of 12.12.1981 & MOM/8873 of 28.10.1985 the said selection list is valid for a period of one year. I say that from March 2014 to May 2014, the Code of Conduct was implemented for the Parliamentary Elections and therefore, no appointments could be made at the said time. Also, between August, 2014 to October, 2014, Code of Conduct was implemented for the said Assembly Elections and therefore, even during that period no appointments could be made.” 8. Therefore, the Respondent-Corporation for the reasons so recorded has not exhausted the list. However a submission, based upon the affidavit so placed on record, is made that the MCGM has appointed the reserved category posts taking note of selected candidates and accordingly they have exhausted the quota. Admittedly, there was a clause as per the practice and the settled law that the list so prepared would expire after completion of 12 months. In the present case, that would be on 5 April 2014. The Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to claim appointment based upon the said select list dated 5 April 2013, after expiry of so many months. In the present case, that would be on 5 April 2014. The Petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to claim appointment based upon the said select list dated 5 April 2013, after expiry of so many months. This delay and laches, in our view, disentitles the Petitioners to pray for the reliefs of a direction against the Respondents to extend the validity of the list after its expiry and consider their case. There are other candidates, who are also entitled, if the period of such list, is extended as prayed for. All are not party before this Court. This delay part, therefore, goes against the Petitioners. 9. The power and/or discretion so provided, as per the Resolution, to extend the period beyond 12 months, in the present facts and circumstances, cannot be interfered with, though after due deliberation they have taken decision to commence fresh selection process by the advertisement dated 12 May 2015. The Petitioners cannot claim that, in the circumstances, where the select list if not exhausted fully and when the select list has admittedly expired and therefore, even after such lapse of time/period, they are entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction on the foundation of stated arbitrariness and/or discrimination, is also unacceptable. In the present case, we have noted the reasons so recorded to compel the Respondent-Corporation not to exhaust the list in question. The reasons cannot be stated to be arbitrary and/or having any pinch of mala-fide. Earlier on such occasions, the Respondent-Corporation has extended the period of list for the stated Election Code of Conduct, that itself cannot be the reason for this Court to direct them to extend the validity period of list, in question again. The Respondent-Corporation is required to take decision based upon the materials available with them and ultimately as they have exercised the said power/discretion and decided to advertise afresh, we see no reason to interfere with the same also basically at the instance of the Petitioners, at this belated stage. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties have read and referred the following Judgments in support of their respective contentions. a) East Coast Railway & Anr. Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 678 b) Mr. Desale Kiran Sureshrao & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 9845 of 2013 Dated 15 December 2014 (Bombay High Court) c) Vijoy Kumar Pandey Vs. a) East Coast Railway & Anr. Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 678 b) Mr. Desale Kiran Sureshrao & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 9845 of 2013 Dated 15 December 2014 (Bombay High Court) c) Vijoy Kumar Pandey Vs. Arvind Kumar Rai & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 611 d) State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors., (2010) 6 SCC 777 e) Joginder Singh & Ors. VS. Roshan Lal & Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 765 11 The gist of the same may be crystalized as under: a) Empanelment, even if any, after selection process, does not give any indefeasible right to the appointment. It does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. b) The decision not to fill the vacant seats, must be bona-fide and not arbitrary. The selection process should not be arbitrary and malafide. Such powers must be exercised for legitimate purpose. c) The State or Department is required to follow the rules including the aspect of expiry of selection list as announced. Unless an exceptional case is made out, no appointment may be made after expiry or extended period of the select list. d) The recruitment in excess of requirement of vacancies is impermissible. e) Judicial Review in such selection process under Article 226 is limited, as the belated stage; and at the instance of candidate/Petitioner who has participated in the impugned selection process. 12. The Judgments so cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, in any way, are not sufficient on the facts and circumstances itself, to grant the reliefs so prayed for, in the present Writ Petition in view of the admitted position of law and facts of record. 13. Merely because the Corporation made appointment on 10 posts even after expiry of the list period, that itself cannot be the reason to accept the case of the Petitioners. The stated appointment even if made, cannot be the reason to reopen the list and permit the Corporation to appoint the Petitioners and/or similarly placed persons. Admittedly, no relief is sought in this regard. The only contention as raised by the Petitioners is that the select list which stands expired on 5 April 2014 be held to be valid. The stated appointment even if made, cannot be the reason to reopen the list and permit the Corporation to appoint the Petitioners and/or similarly placed persons. Admittedly, no relief is sought in this regard. The only contention as raised by the Petitioners is that the select list which stands expired on 5 April 2014 be held to be valid. The Respondent-Corporation has exercised its power and jurisdiction and discretion, after expiry of the list period and decided not to appoint by giving due deliberation, also required to be maintained. It is specifically averred that a proposal was put up before AMC (City) to extend the period of select list of Junior Engineer (Civil). However, the Municipal Commissioner rejected the said list. No appointments were made after rejection of the said list, is the case of the Corporation. 14. The Petitioners' admitted participation in selection process, after filing of this present Writ Petition as per advertisement dated 12 May 2015, is an additional factor, which according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, goes against the Petitioners. However, considering the totality of the matter, including admitted position on record, no case is made out to interfere with the advertisement and/or selection process based upon the same. 15. Writ Petition is dismissed. 16. Rule discharged accordingly. 17. There shall be no order as to costs.