JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - On 24.6.2016, respondent-corporation issued advertisement inviting therein applications (at page 33) for filling up of 300 posts of drivers. Petitioners alongwith other persons also submitted applications for consideration of their candidature. Though approximately 5000 persons applied in terms of aforesaid advertisement, but about 3800 candidates participated in the preliminary test and in the second test, only 1200 candidates participated. The respondent-corporation selected 430 candidates in the aforesaid recruitment process and accordingly, issued list of selected candidates, wherein admittedly, petitioners'' names were also there. In this regard, on 27.9.2016, a news item (at page36) got published in daily news paper "Punjab Kesri". Subsequently, respondent-Corporation issued letters dated 29.11.2016 (at page-37), enclosing therewith list of 229 selected candidates, who were to be appointed as drivers on contract basis. Out of 229 candidates, only 226 candidates reported for pre-appointment training. On 13.12.2016, respondent corporation by way of message asked all the incumbents numbering about 220 to appear in further selection process of 146 additional posts of drivers to be held on 12/13th December, 2016. Since selected candidates were being again put to the test, they filed Original Application bearing OA No. 339 of 2016, which came to be decided vide judgment dated 14.3.2017 (at page 50). In the aforesaid OA, respondentcorporation placed on record copy of office order dated 9.3.2017 and claimed before the learned Tribunal below that in view of the urgency of the drivers, the Board of Directors of the respondent-corporation approved to fill up of unfilled posts which of 146 drivers as per the roster by conducting final driving test of 220 candidates, who qualified in final driving test but not selected. Respondent-corporation further apprised the learned Tribunal that recruitment process for 146 posts of drivers was allowed to go on by the learned Tribunal on 8.12.2016, but was not to be finalized without approval of the learned Tribunal. Interview/driving test for 146 posts of drivers was conducted by the HRTC at DW Taradevi on 13 and 14th December, 2016, whereas Board of Directors of the respondent-corporation in its 138th meeting held on 16.2.2017, decided to cancel the earlier recruitment process and start fresh two layer recruitment process as per the existing policy and new roster. Interview/driving test for 146 posts of drivers was conducted by the HRTC at DW Taradevi on 13 and 14th December, 2016, whereas Board of Directors of the respondent-corporation in its 138th meeting held on 16.2.2017, decided to cancel the earlier recruitment process and start fresh two layer recruitment process as per the existing policy and new roster. Since respondentcorporation decided to withdraw the recruitment process started for filing up of 146 posts of driver, original applications having been filed by the present petitioners came to be disposed of having rendered infructuous. 2. Being aggrieved with aforesaid decision dated 18.10.2016, taken by the Board of Directors of HRTC, as referred herein above, person namely Ramesh Kumar, filed original application bearing OA No. 1958 of 2017, praying therein for following reliefs:- "7(i) That impugned orders Annexure A-6 dated 9.3.2017 and 138th proceedings of the Board of Directors qua cancelling of earlier recruitment process for filling up the posts of drivers contained in item B (iii) and advertisement Annexure A-7 may kindly be quashed and setaside with direction to the respondents to fill in accrued posts of drivers from the selected panel available with them prepared in OctoberNovember, 2016, and thereafter advertise only remaining vacancies to be filled in from the open market." 3. Learned Tribunal below taking note of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, dismissed the aforesaid Original Application and upheld the decision taken by the Board of Directors of respondent-corporation in its 138th meeting held on 16.2.2017. 4. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set-aside the impugned judgment dated 12.9.2017, passed by the learned Tribunal below and issue direction to the respondent corporation to consider and send the petitioners for pre-appointment training along with 229 candidates, who were selected in terms of advertisement dated 26.2.2016. 5. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, representing the petitioners, while terming the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal to be illegal contended that learned Tribunal below has fallen in error while upholding the decision of the respondent-corporation taken in its 138th meeting held on 16.2.2017 because there is clear cut discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in as much as 430 candidates were selected against 300 available posts, whereafter panel was prepared. He further argued that without preparation of panel, 229 candidates could not be sent for pre-appointment training and once that panel was in existence, 146 posts also ought to have been filled from the selected panel. He further argued that despite there being existence of selected panel, respondents advertised 574 posts, but learned Tribunal below without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, particularly with respect to the discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India, upheld the decision of the Board, whereby it decided to cancel its earlier recruitment process for filing up pots of drivers. He further argued that as per government instructions available in the handbook of Personal Matters, which has also application in the respondent-corporation mutatis mutandis, select panel prepared against the particular posts is/was to remain in vogue for a period of one year and as such, 146 vacancies accrued during the currency of panel was alive for one year and as such, action of respondentcorporation in inviting 574 posts afresh is not tenable. Lastly, Mr. Sharma, contended that order passed by the learned Tribunal is in violation of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. He further argued that the petitioners legitimately expected that when the select panel is available, any accrued vacancy during the currency of select panel shall be filled in from the select panel, but such legitimate expectation stands frustrated by the respondents, who despite there being subsistence of select panel proceeded to issue fresh advertisement, which action, on their part, cannot be allowed to sustain in any circumstances. 6. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General and Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate, appearing for State and respondent No.2, respectively, supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal below and contended that there is no illegality and infirmity in the same and as such, same needs to be upheld. They argued that no select/waiting list as alleged by the petitioners was ever prepared at the time of selection of candidates pursuant to advertisement dated 24.6.2016. They further stated that out of 146 posts of drivers mentioned in the decision of Board of Directors, 71 posts were backlog vacancies which could not be filled up due to nonavailability of candidates from the respective categories, whereas remaining 75 posts were new vacancies. They further stated that out of 146 posts of drivers mentioned in the decision of Board of Directors, 71 posts were backlog vacancies which could not be filled up due to nonavailability of candidates from the respective categories, whereas remaining 75 posts were new vacancies. They further contended that since challenge was laid to the decision taken by the respondent-corporation, Board of Directors in 138th meeting held on 16.2.2017, decided to cancel the earlier recruitment process and start fresh two layer recruitment process as per the existing policy and new roster. Lastly, above named counsel contended that by way of original application registered as OA No. 7256 of 2016, entire process was challenged on the ground that out of 146 vacancies , 75 posts are new vacancies and as such, same cannot be filled up except by way of fresh advertisement and similarly, remaining 71 vacancies, which are backlog vacancies, also cannot be filled up without re-advertising the same. In view of aforesaid challenge, Board of Directors in its 138th meeting rightly decided to cancel the earlier recruitment process. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record 8. There is no dispute that pursuant to advertisement dated 24.6.2016, applications were invited for filling up of posts of drivers and respondent-Corporation had selected 430 candidates in the recruitment process, but only 220 candidates were engaged as driver on contract basis. Though petitioners have claimed that the select/waiting panel was prepared in 2016 and to substantiate their aforesaid claim, they have placed reliance upon the news item, according to which, 430 candidates had qualified the screening test and Board of Directors decided only to call 220 candidates, but no such select/waiting panel, if any has been placed on record by the petitioners. To the contrary, respondents have categorically stated that no select/waiting list was ever prepared. Since out of 146 posts of drivers, as stand mentioned, in the decision of Board of Directors, 71 posts were backlog vacancies, which could not be filled up due to non-availability of candidates from the respective categories, whereas 75 posts were new vacancies, same could not be filled up without calling for fresh application. Since out of 146 posts of drivers, as stand mentioned, in the decision of Board of Directors, 71 posts were backlog vacancies, which could not be filled up due to non-availability of candidates from the respective categories, whereas 75 posts were new vacancies, same could not be filled up without calling for fresh application. Board of Directors in its 137th Meeting held on 18.10.2017, took a conscious decision to fill up 146 posts of drivers from the remaining candidates, who had qualified the test and were amongst 449 candidates and final test pursuant to aforesaid decision taken by the Board was conducted 13.12.2016 and 14.12.2016, for filling up 146 posts but, as has been noticed hereinabove, one Shri Ramesh Kumar filed Original Application bearing O.A. (D) No. 339 of 2016, laying therein challenge to the process of filling up of 146 posts out of 220 candidates on the basis of re-test. Another original application bearing OA No. 7256 of 2016 titled Ramesh Kumar v. State of HP and Ors, also came to be filed, wherein entire process was challenged on the ground that out of 146 vacancies, 75 vacancies are new and as such, same cannot be filled up except by way of fresh advertisement. Applicants in the aforesaid Original Applications claimed before the learned Tribunal that remaining 71 vacancies, which are backlog cannot be filled up without readvertising the same. During the pendency of the aforesaid Original Application before the learned Tribunal, matter came to be placed before the Board of Directors of respondentcorporation, which in its wisdom, to ensure transparency, took a conscious decision to re-advertise 75 posts afresh. In the aforesaid background, Original Applications bearing OA Nos. 7256 and 339 of 2016, came to be disposed of. Learned Tribunal below while disposing of the aforesaid Original Application observed in its order dated 14.3.2017 that "since earlier recruitment started for filling up of 146 posts of drivers, for which driving test/interview was taken on 13th /14th December, 2016, has been withdrawn on administrative grounds, nothing survives for further adjudication in these matters and accordingly, same are disposed of." 9. As has been noticed herein above, no select/waiting panel, if any, is placed on record by the petitioners, to substantiate their claim that they were selected pursuant to advertisement dated 24.6.2016, and since only 229 candidates were engaged as driver on contract basis, they were kept on select/waiting panel. As has been noticed herein above, no select/waiting panel, if any, is placed on record by the petitioners, to substantiate their claim that they were selected pursuant to advertisement dated 24.6.2016, and since only 229 candidates were engaged as driver on contract basis, they were kept on select/waiting panel. Similarly, there is nothing on record to refute the contention of respondents that out of 146 posts of driver, 71 posts were backlog vacancies, which could not be filled up due to non-availability of candidates from respective categories, whereas remaining 75 vacancies were new vacancies. 71 backlog posts could not be filled up on the basis of process initiated vide advertisement dated 24.6.2016, but definitely in this regard, fresh advertisement was required to be issued by the corporation. 10. Otherwise also, it is well settled that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised because recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the right under Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, of those persons, who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies, but in the case at hand, it is not in dispute that 71 backlog posts, which were indented to be filled up by the HRTC-respondent-corporation on the basis of earlier process initiated vide advertisement dated 24.6.2016, were not included in 300 posts of drivers advertised in the advertisement dated 24.6.2016. Similarly, there is nothing on record that remaining 75 posts were also from aforesaid 300 posts of the drivers. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason that it amounts to improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation it can be allowed. Hon''ble Apex Court has further held that such deviation from rule is only permissible, if policy decision based upon some rationale is taken up by the appropriate authority. Hon''ble Apex Court in Rakhi Ray and Ors. Hon''ble Apex Court has further held that such deviation from rule is only permissible, if policy decision based upon some rationale is taken up by the appropriate authority. Hon''ble Apex Court in Rakhi Ray and Ors. v. High Court of Delhi and Ors , (2010) 2 SCC 637 , which has otherwise been taken note of by the learned Tribunal while passing impugned order, has clearly laid down that filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, not permissible in law. 11. Hon''Ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh V. State of Punjab , (1997) 8 SCC 488 , has categorically held that "a waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join, then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list." 12. In the case at hand, though there is nothing on record to infer that select/waiting list, if any, was drawn by the respondent-corporation at the time of carrying out selection in terms of advertisement dated 24.6.2016, but otherwise also if the case of the petitioners is accepted, that their names were included in the waiting list, they are not entitled to any relief, as prayed for, because they could only be offered appointment, if any, of the selected candidate had not joined, but in this case, such is not the position. Rather in the case at hand, Board of Directors, in its meeting, took a decision to fill up 146 posts of the driver, which also included 71 backlog posts from remaining candidates, who had qualified for the posts and were amongst 449 candidates. As has been noticed above, since respondent corporation also intended to fill up 71 backlog posts while filling up of 446 posts of drivers, it ought to have issued advertisement and no such selection could be made on the basis of test held pursuant to advertisement dated 24.6.2016. Respondentcorporation after filing of as many as 21 Original Applications including OA Nos. Respondentcorporation after filing of as many as 21 Original Applications including OA Nos. 4256 and 339 of 2016, rightly took a decision in the 138th meeting held on 16.2.2017, to cancel the earlier recruitment process and start afresh two layer recruitment process as per new policy and new roster. 13. Otherwise also, by now it is well settled that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. 14. Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein above, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, which otherwise is based upon proper appreciation of facts and law and hence the petition fails and dismissed accordingly.