ORDER : P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. Rule. Mr. D. Nagaraj, learned AGA waives notice for Respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Reuben Jacob, learned Counsel waives notice for Respondent No. 3 2. This petition is filed by unsuccessful applicants before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal ("KAT" for short), calling in question it's order dated 9.8.2016 in Applications No. 2954-2959/2014. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, by a notification dated 4.8.2009, third respondent - Karnataka Public Service Commission ("KPSC" for short) called for applications from eligible candidates to fill up 101 posts of Sub-Inspector (Excise) as per the Karnataka Civil Services (Competitive Examination to the Ministerial Post) Rules, 1978 and the Karnataka Excise Services (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 ("Recruitment Rules" for short). After the selection process was complete, KPSC published a list of selected candidates on 17.3.2011. Accordingly, appointment orders were issued. Out of 101 selected candidates, 21 candidates did not report for duty. Second respondent - Commissioner for Excise, by his letter dated 5.7.2012 (Annexure-A5), requested KPSC to send an additional list and the KPSC issued a notification dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure-A6) notifying 11 candidates. Pursuant thereto, petitioners were called for verification of their certificates between December 2012 - January 2013. Even after verification of their testimonials, petitioners did not receive their appointment orders. However, second respondent issued an endorsement dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure A-19) stating that the additional list ceased to be 'operative' simultaneously with issuance of a subsequent notification. Hence, the petitioners approached the KAT inter alia with a prayer to direct the respondents to issue appointment orders and to quash endorsement Annexure 'A-19'. 4. Respondent - State contested the applications inter alia on the ground that the additional list issued by the third respondent ceased to be operative with issuance of a subsequent notification dated 7.12.2012 for 200 posts. Reliance was placed on Rule 12(b) to sustain their stand. 5. On consideration of material on record and for the reasons recorded therein, learned KAT dismissed the applications. Hence, these petitions. 6. We have heard Sri Ranganath Jois, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. D. Nagaraj, learned AGA for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri. Reuben Jacob, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. 7. It was argued by Sri. Ranganath Jois that KPSC committed an error in not issuing an additional list simultaneously with the main list. Hence, these petitions. 6. We have heard Sri Ranganath Jois, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. D. Nagaraj, learned AGA for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri. Reuben Jacob, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. 7. It was argued by Sri. Ranganath Jois that KPSC committed an error in not issuing an additional list simultaneously with the main list. The certificates of the petitioners were verified between December 2012 and January 2013. However, the appointment orders were not issued. The KAT having recorded in paragraph No. 10 of it's order that KPSC ought to have issued the additional list along with the main list, erred in law in dismissing the applications. Thus, he prayed that this Court may consider petitioners' cases. He has placed reliance on the following authorities: 1. 1984 (Supp) SCC 687 (Prem Prakash v. Union of India and others); 2. 1986 (4) SCC 268 (Miss. Neelima Shangla, PH.D. Candidate v. State of Haryana and others); and 3. W.P.No.10605-620/2010 (S-KAT) dated 8.12.2010 (Nagaraju N.R. v. State of Karnataka & others) 8. Sri D. Nagaraj, learned AGA supporting the impugned order prayed for dismissal of these petitions. However, he has filed a memo dated 15.11.2016 stating that 21 posts which have remained unfilled pursuant to notification dated 17.3.2011 are not included in the subsequent notification dated 7.12.2012. 9. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. The facts of the case are in a very narrow compass. The third respondent has issued the main list on 17.3.2011 and additional list on 23.11.2012. We may however record that, a subsequent notification for 200 posts of Sub Inspector of Excise was issued on 7.12.2012. 11. The names of petitioners are found in the additional list dated 23.11.2012. Though their certificates were verified by January 2013, they remained complacent and filed the instant applications before the KAT only on 22.6.2015. We may also record that by the said date, pursuant to second notification, 200 candidates were selected and it is stated before us that 191 out of 200 have reported for duty. 12. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, it is brought to our notice that his name was dropped from the additional list and the same is upheld by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2016 in W.P.No.52929/2016. 12. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, it is brought to our notice that his name was dropped from the additional list and the same is upheld by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2016 in W.P.No.52929/2016. Consequently, we have not examined his case in this proceeding. 13. It is no more res integra that no indefeasible right of appointment shall accrue to a candidate placed in the select list or a waiting list. This has been the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in it's various pronouncements (See Raj Rishi Mehra and others v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243 ). It is also fairly well settled that upon a new notification being issued, the candidates selected pursuant to previous notification/s also cannot claim any right of appointment, but it may be clarified that such select list/wait list prepared should be made operative at least to the extent of number of posts advertised. Hence, candidates included in the list shall have a right to be considered towards unfilled seats of the previous notification unless the unfilled seats are included in new notification issued for filling up of the post and new list is prepared. 14. However, in the instant case, it is significant to note that the second respondent, Commissioner of Excise called upon the petitioners vide communications - Annexures 'A7' to 'A12' all dated 21.12.2012 to submit their testimonials within 15 days therefrom and the same were verified between December 2012 and January 2013. The stand taken by the respondents to negate petitioners' claims as per Annexure 'A19' is that both main list and the additional list would cease to be operative as per Rule 12-B of the Recruitment Rules. Incidentally, by filing a memo dated 15.11.2016, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have placed on record that 21 posts which had remained unfilled pursuant to earlier notification are not included in the subsequent notification dated 7.12.2012. The said memo precisely reads as follows:- "MEMO The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 humbly submits as under: 1. It is submitted that, 200 posts of Excise Sub-Inspectors have been notified vide Notification dated 7.12.2012 by the 3rd Respondent - KPSC based on the requisition from the Excise Commissioner's Office letter dated 5.7.2012 which was much earlier to the preparation of additional selection list of 10% of 101 posts of Sub-Inspectors of Excise. It is submitted that, 200 posts of Excise Sub-Inspectors have been notified vide Notification dated 7.12.2012 by the 3rd Respondent - KPSC based on the requisition from the Excise Commissioner's Office letter dated 5.7.2012 which was much earlier to the preparation of additional selection list of 10% of 101 posts of Sub-Inspectors of Excise. Therefore, 21 posts of Sub-Inspectors of Excise which were unfilled pursuant to the final select list dated 17.3.2011 are not included in the notified list of 200 posts vide Notification dated 7.12.2012. WHEREFORE, the respondent 1 and 2 humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take the same facts on record, in the interest of justice and equity." 15. As recorded herein above, petitioners are denied appointments on the premise that with the issuance of subsequent notifications, as per Rule 12-B of Recruitment Rules, the main and the additional list shall cease to be operative. Had it been the stand of the respondent-KPSC or Government that since unfilled 21 seats were included in subsequent notification inviting application of eligible candidates and hence earlier waiting list had ceased to operate, it would stand on different footing and on different consideration. 16. The principle of operation of a waiting list has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir and others v. Sat Pal reported in (2013)11 SCC 737 . The facts delineated in the Judgment reveal that the private respondent therein namely, Sat Pal participated in the selection process for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), Grade II. Having learnt that a candidate above him in the merit list had not joined, he submitted a representation seeking appointment on the premise that one Trilok Nath, who had been offered appointment had not joined. Since his representation was not considered, he moved the High Court in a writ petition. It was disposed of with a direction to the appointing authority to examine his claim. The State Government therein rejected his claim on the ground that the waiting list issued in respect of the recruitment had outlived its validity. The private respondent again moved the High Court with a contempt petition, wherein, the High Court granted four weeks for compliance. Being aggrieved, the State was in appeal before the Apex Court. After analysing the factual matrix of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court precisely held as follows:- "11. The private respondent again moved the High Court with a contempt petition, wherein, the High Court granted four weeks for compliance. Being aggrieved, the State was in appeal before the Apex Court. After analysing the factual matrix of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court precisely held as follows:- "11. In view of the factual position noticed herein above, the reason indicated by the appellants in declining the claim of the respondent Sat Pal for appointment out of the waiting list is clearly unjustified. A waiting list would start to operate only after the posts for which the recruitment is conducted, have been completed. A waiting list would commence to operate when offers of appointment have been issued to those emerging on the top of the merit list. The existence of a waiting list allows room to the appointing authority to fill up vacancies which arise during the subsistence of the waiting list. A waiting list commences to operate after the vacancies for which the recruitment process has been conducted have been filled up. In the instant controversy the aforesaid situation for operating the waiting list had not arisen, because one of the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil), Grade II for which the recruitment process was conducted was actually never filled up. For the reason that Trilok Nath had not assumed charge, one of the posts for which the process of recruitment was conducted, had remained vacant. That apart, even if it is assumed for arguments sake, that all the posts for which the process of selection was conducted were duly filled up. it cannot be disputed that Trilok Nath who had participated in the same selection process as the respondent herein, was offered appointment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). Grade II on 22-4-2008. The aforesaid offer was made consequent upon his selection in the said process of recruitment. The validity of the waiting list, in the facts of this case, has to be determined with reference to 22-4-2008. because the vacancy was offered to Trilok Nath on 22-4- 2008. It is the said vacancy, for which the respondent had approached the High Court. As against the aforesaid, it is the acknowledged position recorded by the appellants in the impugned order dated 23-8- 2011 (extracted above), that the waiting list was valid till May 2008. because the vacancy was offered to Trilok Nath on 22-4- 2008. It is the said vacancy, for which the respondent had approached the High Court. As against the aforesaid, it is the acknowledged position recorded by the appellants in the impugned order dated 23-8- 2011 (extracted above), that the waiting list was valid till May 2008. If Trilok Nath was found eligible for appointment against the vacancy in question out of the same waiting list, the respondent herein would be equally eligible for appointment against the said vacancy. This would be the unquestionable legal position, insofar as the present controversy is concerned. (Emphasis supplied) 17. When the facts of the petitioners herein are examined with reference to the above judgment, what emerges is that though the petitioners herein have also participated in the selection process pursuant to notification dated 4.8.2009, they are not appointed though 21 selected candidates did not report for duty, as KPSC did not issue the waiting list simultaneously with the main selection list. In any event, they were called upon to furnish their testimonials for verification on 21.12.2012 and their certificates were verified between December, 2012 and January 2013 which is well within six months from the date of issuance of additional list. Respondent - State took a conscious decision not to include the 21 unfilled posts in the subsequent list. Therefore, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sat Pal, supra, the cases of the petitioners herein, who are in the waiting list deserve to be considered, since 21 posts notified earlier had remained unfilled and not even included in the subsequent notification when the applications are invited to fill up post from eligible candidates. 18. Out of the three judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, two judgments are not applicable to the facts of this case. However, in the case of Neelima Shangla, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "2. ....The duty of the Public Service Commission is to make available to the Government a complete list of qualified candidates arranged in order of merit. Thereafter the Government is to make the selection strictly in the order in which they have been placed by the Commission as a result of the examination......." The Apex Court has also further held as follows :- "2. Thereafter the Government is to make the selection strictly in the order in which they have been placed by the Commission as a result of the examination......." The Apex Court has also further held as follows :- "2. .....However, as we said, the selection cannot arbitrarily be restricted to a few candidates, notwithstanding the number of vacancies and the availability of qualified candidates. There must be a conscious application of the mind of the Government and the High Court before the number of persons selected for appointment is restricted. Any other interpretation would make Rule 8 of Part D meaningless. In the present case, though the rules required the Public Service Commission to publish the result of the examination and, apparently, also to communicate the result to the Government, the Public Service Commission did not publish the result in the first instance and sent only the names of 17 candidates belonging to general category to the Government, though many more had qualified. That was wrong. The names of all the qualified candidates had to be sent to the Government. (Emphasis supplied) 19. As rightly recorded by the Tribunal, KPSC ought to have sent the additional list simultaneously to the Government. The file notings produced before us indicate that there was protracted correspondence on the subject. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that, petitioners' cases merit consideration in the hands of the respondent - State. We hasten to add that, in view of inordinate delay in approaching the KAT, the petitioners shall not be entitled for seniority above the candidates appointed pursuant to subsequent notification. 20. In the result, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside; (ii) Respondent-State is directed to consider the cases of petitioners No. 2 to 6 for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Excise), pursuant to additional list notified on 23.11.2012, but in accordance with the merit order specified in the said list; (iii) In the event of their appointment, petitioners No. 2 to 6 shall not be entitled to claim seniority over the candidates appointed pursuant to second notification dated 7.12.2012. 21. Petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.