ORDER : The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for quashment of notice dated 21.12.2015 issued by Respondent No.4 whereby the 6th merit list for counseling in relation to appointment to the post of Intermediate and Graduate Trained Teachers pursuant to Advertisement No.02/2015 has been cancelled by decision of the District Education Establishment Committee, Saraikela, Kharswan. Further prayer has been made for direction upon the concerned respondent-authorities to conduct the counseling of the petitioner whose name appears at Sl.No.2 of the 6th counseling merit list for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher (Language) for class VI to VIII under Non Para Teacher Category in the district of Saraikela, Kharswan. It has also been prayed for direction upon the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner as an outcome of the counseling process and a further direction be issued upon the respondents to issue appropriate orders for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher (Language) in Government Schools for class VI to VIII if petitioner is found successful. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the District Superintendent of Education, Saraikela Kharswan issued Advertisement No.02/2015, inviting application from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Inter and Graduate Trained Teachers under 'Para Teachers Category and non-Para teacher category'. As per the advertisement, total number of 66 posts of Graduate Trained Teacher (Language) were advertised for direct appointment and application were invited from eligible candidates in the light of 2012 Recruitment Rules. As per the relevant recruitment rules, applicant applying for the aforesaid post should possess valid teacher training certificate of 2 years from a recognized institution, must be a Graduate and must have qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the State Govt. for Class VI to VIII, with at least one local language of the concerned district in which the application is submitted. As per the application form, the 'Para Teacher' applicants who were intending to take advantage of relaxation in age, were required to declare vide clause 20 of the application form, details pertaining to their services as Para Teacher. The petitioner having fulfilled all the requisite criteria had applied for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher (Language) for class VI to VII in the District of Saraikela Kharswan as a Non Para Teacher Category. 3. The petitioner having fulfilled all the requisite criteria had applied for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher (Language) for class VI to VII in the District of Saraikela Kharswan as a Non Para Teacher Category. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said selection process is guided by 2012 Rules issued vide notification No.1632 dated 05.09.2012 and amended vide notification No.2102 dated 22.10.2014 as well as notification No.1388 dated 22.06.2015. 4. It is specific case of the petitioner that as per definition of clause 2 of notification No.1632 dated 05.09.2012, the term 'trained' denotes possessing teachers training and qualified from duly recognized teachers training Institute. The term 'teachers' training from duly recognized teachers training institute' denotes having acquired teachers' training either under regular course or through Distance Education Mode but if acquired after the coming into effect of NCTE Act, 1993 i.e. 01.07.1995 then from such teachers' training institute, which are duly recognized by the NCTE and if acquired prior to 01.07.1995 then such teachers training institute should have been duly recognized by the State Government or the University Grants Commission. As per the 2012 Rules the applicant has to necessarily qualify the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the State Government. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to participate in the counseling process for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Language Teachers in the Non-para Teachers Category in view of the fact that the petitioner fulfills all the eligibility criteria as set out in the advertisement and the relevant Recruitment Rules. In light of 2012 Rules for appointment of teachers in Govt. Schools notified vide notification as contained in memo No.1632 dated 05.09.2012, issued by Directorate of Primary Education, HRD Department, Govt. of Jharkhand and amended vide notification No.2102 dated 22.10.2014, as also vide notification No.1388 dated 22.06.2015, the respondent cannot deny appointment of the petitioner by closing the recruitment process prior to filling-up of the vacancies advertised vide Advertisement No.02/2015. The action of the concerned respondents denying participation of the petitioner in the counseling process for selection and appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Language Teachers on the pretext that the District Establishment Committee has decided to cancel the 6th merit list for counseling, is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. The action of the concerned respondents denying participation of the petitioner in the counseling process for selection and appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Language Teachers on the pretext that the District Establishment Committee has decided to cancel the 6th merit list for counseling, is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. In view of the fact that neither at the stage of advertisement nor in the relevant rules there was any condition for fixing a cut off point, the respondents cannot on their administrative fiat decide to fix a cut off point declaring the other eligible candidates as unfit for appointment who are otherwise fit and eligible under the relevant Recruitment Rules. The impugned notice dated 21.12.2015 on the basis of the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee cancelling the 6th merit list and closing the process of appointment in spite of posts which were advertised remained vacant, is beyond the competence, authority and jurisdiction of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the light of the Recruitment Rules. In view of the fact that the petitioner has come within the zone of consideration in the merit list prepared for non-para teacher category for the post of Graduate Trained Language Teachers for class VI to VIII, the action of the concerned respondent authorities by first issuing a notice in the local news paper postponing the date of counseling and subsequently cancelling the 6th merit list amounts to arbitrary, whimsical and mala fide action beyond authority particularly when the posts advertised by the respondents are still vacant. 6. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the 6th merit list for counseling in relation to appointment to the post of Intermediate and Graduate Trained Teacher vide Advertisement No.02/2015 has been cancelled by the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee, Seraikela-Kharswan and advocates to conduct the counseling of the petitioner whose name appears at Sl.No.2 of the 6th counseling merit list for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher (Language) for class VI to VII under Non-Para Teacher Category in the district of Seraikela-Kharswan. Learned Counsel further submits that after 5th counseling a merit list of Intermediate Trained candidate under para teacher category was prepared for 6th counseling. Thereafter vide letter dated 16.11.2015 issued by the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. Learned Counsel further submits that after 5th counseling a merit list of Intermediate Trained candidate under para teacher category was prepared for 6th counseling. Thereafter vide letter dated 16.11.2015 issued by the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand a direction was given that prior to next counseling, verification of the list of candidates as to whether they have been selected for other district or not be done. In compliance of said letter the list was verified from the website of other districts and after verification it was found that names of most of the candidates whose names were enlisted for 6th counseling were already selected for the other district. As such the matter was placed in the meeting of District Education Establishment Committee, Seraikella Kharsawan in which it was decided that since the names of most of the candidates already appearing in the list of selected candidate for other district and names of some of the candidate in the list prepared for 6th counseling possesses below the average marks, therefore, it was decided by the Committee not to hold the next i.e. 6th counseling. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The petitioner has confined his argument only to the legality of respondents' decision to stop the counseling, mid-way. The decision not to conduct further counseling as a consequence of which the petitioner has been denied appointment is arbitrary and not tenable in the eyes of law. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that as the names of most of the candidates were enlisted for 6th counseling were already selected for the other districts and as such the names of most of the candidates already appearing in the list of selected candidate and names of some of the other candidates in the list prepared for 6th counseling possesses below the average marks, therefore, it was decided to cancel the 6th counseling is not acceptable to this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has come within the zone of consideration in the merit list prepared for non-para teacher category for the post of graduate trained teachers for Class VI to VIII. Admittedly, the petitioner has come within the zone of consideration in the merit list prepared for non-para teacher category for the post of graduate trained teachers for Class VI to VIII. The postponement of date of counseling and subsequently cancelling the 6th merit list amounts to arbitrary and whimsical action on the part of the respondents. The name of the petitioner finds place in the merit list and he was to appear for counseling. His name appeared at Sl. No.2 of the 6th counseling merit list for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher (Language) for class VI to VIII under Non-para Teacher Category in the district of Seraikella-Kharswan. 9. It has been admitted by the respondents as well that two seats were still vacant which is evident from Annexure-A of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 18.04.2018. 10. It is settled principle of law that qualified candidates on their selection do not acquire any right to the post. They do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed. Unless the relevant recruitment Rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. The issue as to whether vacant seats have to be filled up by the successful candidates or whether they acquire any indefeasible right fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of “Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India”, reported in [ (1991)3 SCC 47 . “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. 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 Marwaha, Neelima Shangla V. State of Haryana, or Jatinder Kumar V. State of Punjab.” The reasons assigned for stopping further counseling on the ground that most of the candidates have been selected and the rest of the candidates are not up to the mark is not acceptable to this Court. No other reasons has been disclosed by the respondent-State for not conducting further counseling in all the districts. It is also an admitted position that process of appointment cannot continue for an indefinite period and somewhere it has to be stopped and it has come to a logical end. Obviously, denial of appointment to the eligible candidates against the remaining unfilled vacancies is not justified and fit to be quashed and set aside. Admittedly, the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner. The action is not tenable in the eyes of law and without any cogent reason the selection process has been terminated. 11. Since the petitioner has been duly qualified and selected and her name finds place in the merit list for appointment to the post of graduate trained teacher for non-para category and she has qualified in unreserved category and is a female candidate and as such she ought to have been appointed by the respondents. It also transpires that the order of cancellation has been signed only by the Dist. Superintendent of Education and the District Commissioner whereas it ought to have been signed by majority of the members of the District Establishment Committee which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that respondents should conduct further counseling for appointment for the remaining advertised vacancies. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that respondents should conduct further counseling for appointment for the remaining advertised vacancies. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S)No.19/2016 and this Court vide order dated 02.02.2017 directed the respondents for conducting fresh counseling with certain observations and directions the same legal propositions also applied in the instant case. The respondents are directed to hold another counseling for the advertised vacant post as per their own admission in the counter-affidavit and after counseling if the petitioner is found eligible fulfilling all requisite qualifications for appointment, his case shall be considered and suitable orders be passed for appointment. 13. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.