ORDER 1. This order will govern disposal of Writ Petition No.263/2017 and Writ Petition No.7619/2016 since it is jointly stated by counsel for the parties that both these writ petitions involve common issue in identical facts situation. 2. For convenience the facts have been noted from Writ Petition No.263/2017. 3. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with a prayer to declare the petitioner eligible for appointment to the post of Accountant and also directing respondents to consider the case for counselling and appointment. 4. The case of petitioner is that he is OBC category candidate and that an advertisement was issued by respondents for recruitment to 2208 posts of accountant out of which 1104 seats were unreserved for open category and 360 for scheduled caste, 442 for scheduled tribe and 309 for OBC category. The petitioner had participated in the selection process and his result was declared on 8.7.2015, but no action was taken thereafter for appointment for a long time and Vigyapti was issued on 29th December 2016 for holding the counselling for 595 posts only and inviting only 1190 candidates in the first round of counselling. 5. The petitioner is claiming that respondents should fill up all posts as per the advertisement and that petitioner should be given appointment on the basis of the select list. Similar is the issue raised in connected writ petition No.7619/2016. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners should be given appointment as per their name in the select list and that respondents should fill up all post on the basis of the advertisement. Further grievance has been raised that one extra mark was given to earlier contract appointees which is wrong. 7. As against this learned counsel for respondents submits that only 595 posts have been filled up and petitioners had obtained less than cut off marks therefore, they have not been given the appointment and that no person having less mark than the petitioner has been given the appointment and that select list has already expired. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. The record reflects that though the advertisement was issued by respondents for 2208 posts but only 595 posts were filled up, therefore, a large number of writ petitions were filed in which liberty was granted to petitioners to approach the competent authority and competent authority was directed to decide the representation. The common order dated 28.10.2016 deciding the representation in pursuance to the direction of this Court reveals that as per applicable rules the post could be reduced or increased. The said order further reveals that validity of select list which was issued on 8.7.2015 was only for a period of 18 months and said validity has expired on 7.1.2017. Therefore, the select list on the basis of which petitioners are claiming appointment has already lapsed. 10. The above order also reveals that posts are project posts of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Mission and they are filled up after sanction of budget from Human Resource Development Ministry. 11. That apart the reply of respondents also reveals that petitioners have obtained less then the cut off marks therefore, they have not been given appointment. The petitioners have also failed to point out even a single incident where a candidate having less mark than petitioner in a particular category has been offered appointment ignoring the claim of petitioner. 12. So far as the allegation of petitioners that extra weightage has been given to the contract employee is concerned, the reply of respondents makes it clear that no additional mark has been given to such employee. 13. In Writ Petition No.263/2017 the petitioner was given interim relief of appearing in counseling by treating him in OBC category but petitioner has failed to avail the benefit of said interim relief. 14. The Constitution Bench also in the matter of Shankarsan Das v. Unioin of India, reported in (1991)3 SCC 47 , has held as under : 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. 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. 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. Subhash Chander Marwaha; Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and others, or Jitendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.” 15. So far as the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 20th May 2011 in Writ Petition (C) No.1794/2011 in the matter of Bharti Yadav and another v. Union of India is concerned, counsel for petitioner has failed to point out as to how the said judgment carries petitioner’s case any further. 16. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted to petitioners in the present writ petitions. The writ petitions are found to be devoid of any merit, which are accordingly dismissed. 17. The signed order be placed in the record of Writ Petition No.263/2017 and copy whereof be placed in the record of connected writ petition.