JUDGMENT : 1. Present Special Appeals in question are directed against the order dated 07.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 67077 of 2014 (Aadi Shakti Pandey and 34 others v. Union of India and 5 others), connected with Writ-A No. 33852 of 2016 (Manish Sahu and 11 others v. Union of India and 5 others) and Writ-A No. 37883 of 2016 (Sandip Kumar v. Union of India and 5 others) wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the bunch of writ petitions by concluding that there exists valid reason for refusing the appointment to the petitioner-appellants. 2. Brief background of the case is that appellants claim that pursuant to the advertisement No. 02 of 2011 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Human Resource), Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Kanpur, each one of the appellant had applied for consideration of his candidature for being offered appointment as Technician Trainee/Diploma Trainee in appropriate trade/discipline. Appellants claim that they have been successful in making place for themselves but thereafter fruit of the said selection was not extended to them, and in view of this, they came to this Court for according requisite relief by offering appointment to them. 3. To the claim that has been set up, response had been filed to the effect that selection had been made and provisional offer of appointment for the post of Technician Trainee/Diploma Trainee in appropriate trade/discipline during November, 2011 and May, 2012 respectively has been made, and thereafter, H.A.L. Corporate office on 22.10.2013 reviewed the concern selection process in respect of workmen, wherein advertisements/notifications were issued before 06.04.2013 and the Division was advised to put on hold all recruitments till further orders. Mention was also made that no final offer of appointment be issued till clearance is given by Corporate office. 4. This much is also reflected that thereafter this Court made queries as to whether any decision has been taken further in the light of communication dated 22.10.2013. Pursuant to the same decision was taken on 04.05.2016 by the Executive Director not to offer any appointment and same led to filing of amendment application and amendment application was allowed. 5. 4. This much is also reflected that thereafter this Court made queries as to whether any decision has been taken further in the light of communication dated 22.10.2013. Pursuant to the same decision was taken on 04.05.2016 by the Executive Director not to offer any appointment and same led to filing of amendment application and amendment application was allowed. 5. After exchange of pleadings, present matter has been taken up for final hearing/disposal with the consent of the parties and learned Single Judge in his turn on each and every aspect of the matter, has not at all found favour with the arguments that has been so advanced and has proceeded to non suit the claim of the petitioner-appellants and thus, petitioner-appellants are once again before this Court. 6. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case engagement of appellants was made on independent assessment of work in question, and it was not at all dependent on any other contingency, further various incumbents lower in merit, have been offered appointment and petitioner-appellants have been left out and denied appointment without any rational basis, in such a situation, learned Single Judge ought to have come to the rescue of the petitioner-appellants by directing for offering appointment to the petitioner-appellants also. 7. Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the respondents contended the said submission by contending before this Court that mere selection does not even the appointment that has been so offered was provisional one ad it could have been kept on hold before it was actually acted upon on rational ad valid situation and here, once policy decision has been taken with particular cut of date and thereafter, no one has been appointed, then merely because appellants got selected , they cannot claim as a matter of right that they be offered appointment with all means. Learned singe Judge has rightly dealt with the issues in its correct perspective, warranting no interference by this Court once again in special Appeal 8. Learned singe Judge has rightly dealt with the issues in its correct perspective, warranting no interference by this Court once again in special Appeal 8. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual situation on which there is no dispute before us that process of selection had been undertaken for making selection and appointment on the post of Technician Trainee/Diploma Trainee in appropriate trade/ discipline for which appellants have been selected in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 02 of 2011 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Human Resource), Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Kanpur. This is also accepted position that as per list that has been so published of successful candidates, each and every candidates had been offered appointment on provisional basis, subject to fulfilment of pre requisite terms and conditions. From the record, this much is reflected that at no point of time merit has been ignored in the matter of offering appointment to any one of the selected candidates, inasmuch as, appointment had been offered to each and every candidate as per select list that has been so prepared in alphabetical order on provisional basis. Factual situation i.e. so emerging in the present case is that before final order of appointment could be made, requisite report has been called for in context of mandatory preemployment formalities such as obtaining of satisfactory report on verification of Character and antecedents from the concerned authorities, Vigilance clearance (in case of candidates from Government/PSU/Quasi Government) from the concerned organisation, Caste Verification from the concerned authorities (wherever applicable). On successful completion of entire pre-employment formalities, final offer of appointment had been issued to 13 provisionally selected candidate that included 12 Diploma Trainees and 1 Watch and Ward Guard with the advice to the candidates to report for joining the Division by 21.10.2013. It is not at all case of petitioner-appellants that qua them also all mandatory pre-requisite employment formalities stood fulfilled on the date when others have been offered appointment even then they have been denied the fruit of appointment. Once pre-employment formalities were not at all fulfilled in reference of petitioner-appellants who have been issued provisional offer and in between from the Corporate office letter dated 22.10.2013 has been send to keep on hold all future appointments, then certainly no final offer of appointment could have been given to petitioner-appellants. Once pre-employment formalities were not at all fulfilled in reference of petitioner-appellants who have been issued provisional offer and in between from the Corporate office letter dated 22.10.2013 has been send to keep on hold all future appointments, then certainly no final offer of appointment could have been given to petitioner-appellants. Decision has not at all been taken at lower level, rather decision has been taken at higher level i.e. from the Corporate office, not to proceed with the selection. 9. The aforesaid order dated 22.10.2013 send from the Corporate office is quoted as under: "Clearance for completing the selection process in respect of workmen, wherein advertisements/notifications were issued before 6.4.13, by following the Rules prevailing prior to issue of the revised Recruitment Manual was given to the Divisions/offices vide letter No. HAL/HR/27(30)/2013/01 dated 14.9.13. The matter is reviewed. The Division is advised to put on hold all Recruitments in the Workmen Cadre, till further orders. 3. No final offers of Appointment to be issued/Interview to be carried out till clearance is given by Corporate office." 10. The concerned authority thereafter has not proceeded to offer final appointment to any one after 22.10.2013 and prior to it appointment has been offered on provisional basis to each and every candidate whose name was there in the select list that had been prepared in alphabetical order, bereft of the merit status, in view of this, grievance that has been sought to be raised that candidates with less merit have been offered appointment and candidates with higher merit have been left out, cannot be accepted by us in the facts of present case. 11. Fact of the matter is that all the candidates have been offered appointment on provisional basis and the candidates qua whom report has been received they have been offered final appointment and permitted to join the post, and all those candidates qua whom report has not been received, they have not been permitted to join after 22.10.2013. In such a situation and in this background, once policy decision has been taken in this regard that after 23.10.2013 all the appointments were directed to be kept on hold, then certainly ignoring the directives of the Corporate office, Local office, could not have proceeded to undertake the process of making final offer of appointment to the candidates, who had earlier been offered appointment on provisional basis. 12. 12. This is also accepted position that this Court on 24.05.2016 granted time to inform as to whether any decision has been taken in the light of order dated 22.10.2013 and then it has been revealed that decision has been taken on 04.05.2016 as follows:- "Please refer to Corporate office letter No. HAL/HR/27(30)/2013/1 dated 22.10.13, on the above subject, vide which the Division was advised to put on hold all Recruitments in the Workmen Cadre, till further orders. The matter is reviewed keeping in view the existing Manpower and Work load of the Division. Projects like IJT & MTA, which are already delayed, would take longer time to get materialized. As such, there is no requirement for induction of additional Manpower in the Division. 3. As the Division does not require additional Manpower at present, the Division is advised to cancel the provisional offers of appointment issued to the candidates with reference to the advertisement issued during the year 2011. No further appointment/selection would be made based on the above advertisement, please." 13. Once such has been the factual situation that is so emerging that decision has been taken by the Corporate office on 22.10.2013 to keep on hold appointments and thereafter on 04.05.2016 final call has been taken after reviewing the situation that existing Manpower and Work load of the Division. Projects like IJT & MTA, which are already delayed, would take longer time to get materialized, as such, there is no requirement for induction of additional Manpower in the Division. 14. Once Defence establishment has taken conscious decision to cancel the provisional offer of appointment issued to the candidates in pursuance to the advertisement, then same cannot be termed to be unreasonable and said exercise also cannot be dubbed to be arbitrary, inasmuch as, after 22.01.2013, no one has been offered appointment and prior to it each and every candidate was being dealt with on similar footing, and in view of this, once conscious decision has been taken on 22.10.2013 followed by final call of withdrawing provisional offer of appointment on 04.05.2016, then same cannot be faulted, as the action taken is covered under Clause VIII of Advertisement dealing with General Instructions wherein Clause (V) and (IX) provides for as follows: Point No. v-" Mere submission of application will not entail right of claiming appointment. Decision of Management regarding selection will be final. Decision of Management regarding selection will be final. Further, the Management reserves the right to fill or otherwise any or all of the notified posts" Point No. ix-" Management reserves the right to reschedule / cancel / suspend / terminate the recruitment process without assigning any reason and alter the terms and conditions at any time during the process due to any exigency. The decision of the Management will be final and no appeal will be entertained" 15. Right of successful candidate to be offered appointment has been subject matter of consideration by the Apex Court, time and again. In the case of Shankarsan Das v. Union of India and others (1991) 3 SCC 47 Apex Court held as follows:- Paragraph 7 of the case of Shankarsan Das (supra) is quoted 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. 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, (1974) 1 SCR 165 , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268 or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCR 899." 16. 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, (1974) 1 SCR 165 , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268 or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCR 899." 16. View to the similar effect ha been expressed in the case of Asha Kaul v. state of Jammu & Kashmir and others (1993) 2 SCC 573 , Directors SCTI for Medical Sciences v. M. Pushkaran (2008) 1 SCC 488, Manoj Manu and another v. Union of India and others (2013) 12 SCC 171 ; Vijay Kumar Pandey v. Arvind Kumar Rai (2013) 11 SCC 611 . Lastly Apex Court in the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others (2016) 6 SCC 532 has summed up the law as follows:- "10. It is fairly well settled that merely because the name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it would not given him indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. The name of a candidate may appear in the merit list but he has no indefeasible right to an appointment (vide Food Corporation of India v. Bhanu Lodh, (2005) 3 SCC 618 , All India SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen, (2001) 6 SCC 380 and UPSC v. Gaurav Dwivedi, (1999) 5 SCC 180 . 11. This Court again in State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777 , held as under: "14. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. 16. A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required." 12. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. 16. A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required." 12. In Manoj Manu v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 171 , it was held that merely because the name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give the candidate an indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. It is always open to the Government not to fill up the vacancies, however such decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Once the decision is found to be based on some valid reason, the Court would not issue any mandamus to the Government to fill up the vacancies. AS noticed earlier, because twenty two other candidates were declared successfully by the Supreme Court pertaining to the selection of the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2011 as Civil Judges (Junior Division), they were to be accommodated, as rightly resolved by the Administrative Committee in the meeting dated 6-7-2011. The three resultant vacancies of the year 2007-2008 stood consumed with the joining of the said seventeen candidates and the same could not be filled up from the select list of that year. The decision of the Administrative Committee observing that the three resultant vacancies stood consumed is based on factual situation arising there and cannot be said to be arbitrary. (Emphasis supplied) 17. The learned Single Judge has rightly summarised the issue in hand as follows:- (i) A person whose names appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment, and empanelment, at the best, is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. In other words, as a rule, a selected candidate does not acquire any indefeasible or vested right of appointment; (ii) even if the vacancies are available, as a rule, the State (employer) has no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies; (iii) it is, thus, clear that until a letter of appointment is issued to a selectee and he joins in pursuance thereof, the recruitment proceedings are not concluded and as a rule, the State (employer) has a right to cancel such recruitment process and no right to get appointment accrues in favour of a selected candidate; (iv) whereas the selectee as such has no legal right, the Superior Court in exercise of its power or judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance of any writ in absence of any pleading and proof of mala fide or arbitrariness on the part of the employer, therefore, each case must be considered on its own merit; (v) however, such rules are subject to certain exceptions, for example, (a) it does not mean that State (employer) has licence to act in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies is to be bona fide and for appropriate reasons: and (b) in case, if the vacancies are filled up, the State (employer) is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidate and there should no discrimination. 18. We also endorse the conclusions drawn qua the law in question that selected candidate has no indefeasible or vested right to claim appointment on being provisionally selected as a matter of right but with a caveat that in appropriate cases Courts may intervene when cancellation of such recruitment is without any valid reason or malafide or order of merit has been ignored for no valid reason in arbitrary manner. 19. Much emphasis has been sought to be laid on the fact that selection in question that has been so undertaken, same was based on Manpower sanctioned in respect of over all strength at HAl, TAD, Kanpur and same has no co-relation whatsoever with the projects described. 20. Specific mention has been made that establishment is a Defence Establishment, and keeping in view security reasons such facts are not disclosed as to for which project recruitment in question was to be made, and as to whether there is requirement of hands or not. 20. Specific mention has been made that establishment is a Defence Establishment, and keeping in view security reasons such facts are not disclosed as to for which project recruitment in question was to be made, and as to whether there is requirement of hands or not. In reference of requirement/engaging of hands final call has to be taken by the employer and merely because candidates have been provisionally selected, they cannot be claim as a matter of right that they should be offered appointment. 21. In the present case, keeping in view over all situation, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge is absolutely right at the point of time when he has proceeded to non suit the claim of the appellants by holding that there exists valid reason to refuse the appointment. Order dated 04.05.2016 clearly indicates that Projects like IJT & MTA, which are already delayed, would take longer time to get materialized, as such, there is no requirement for induction of additional Manpower in the Division. In decision of Corporate office is backed by reason and it cannot be termed to be arbitrary. Valid reason has come forward on record to justify as to under what circumstances, few succeeded in getting appointment and as to why few like petitioner-appellants failed to get final offer of appointment. 22. Consequently, none of the legal right of the petitioner-appellants are infringed and accordingly Special Appeals sans merit and is, accordingly dismissed.