JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. Through the medium of present writ petition, petitioners seek writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to operate the waiting list with respect to Class IV posts under Scheduled Tribe Category issued vide order no. DDC/Class IV/9272 dated 21.10.2011 pursuant to advertisement no. 1 of 2006 dated 15.03.2006. 2. The grievance as projected by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the respondent no. 2- Deputy Commissioner, Doda vide advertisement No. 01 of 2006 dated 15.03.2016, invited applications for the post of Class IV from the eligible candidates of District Doda. The petitioner being eligible applied for the post under Scheduled Tribe Category and subsequently came to be interviewed. On 21st October, 2012 select-cum-waiting list was issued and respondent no. 2 and 3 came to be selected under Scheduled Caste Category and the petitioner no. 1 and 2 came to be shown at Sr. No. 1 and 2 of the waiting list. Subsequently, respondent no. 3 and 4 came to be selected as General Line Teachers and resigned from posts held by them. Due to the resignation of respondent no. 3 and 4, posts held by them became vacant and petitioners staked their claim to said posts being figuring in waiting list. On rejection of their claim by official respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondents in their objection have vehemently denied the claim of petitioners by submitting that sub-rule 7 of rule 14 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules provides that a waiting list shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date of issuance and in the instant case waiting list lost its validity on 20.11.2012 and cannot be operated after its expiry. It is also averred that respondent no. 3 and 4 joined against the vacancies and subsequently on their selection in another department, they left the job, so the vacancies having been filled up and occupied by the selected candidates for some time, stood exhausted and as such cannot be filled up from the waiting list. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the writ record. 5. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the writ record. 5. The only question of law which has arisen for determination in this petition is, “whether the candidates figuring in the waiting list could be adjusted against those notified vacancies which fall vacant because of the resignation of the selected candidates particularly during the life of the waiting list. 6. It is a settled legal position that the vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised. It may lead to continuing the panel subsisting which would be arbitrary and would infringe Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India thereby depriving other eligible candidates for being considered for public employment particularly those who acquire eligibility subsequent to the date of the advertisement and selection process. To recruit the candidates phase-wise is also sometimes helpful to the State as the candidates from the colleges/universities will come with a fresh knowledge, who are up to date in knowledge and may be more scientific in nature. There is no right vested in those candidates, who figure in waiting list to be appointed against future vacancies once the posts advertised get exhausted. There is no legal obligation on the part of the State to fill up all the posts at a time, irrespective of the fact that they are backlogs/ existing vacancies. 7. Regarding the waiting list and how it is to be operated, the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State, Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 elaborately discussed the issue in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 which are reproduced hereunder as:- “8. Coming to the next issue, the first question is what is a waiting list?; can it be treated as a source of recruitment from which candidates may be drawn as and when necessary?; and lastly how long can it operate? These are some important questions which do arise as a result of direction issued by the High Court. A waiting list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list of eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidate. How it should operate and what is its nature may be governed by the rules. A waiting list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list of eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidate. How it should operate and what is its nature may be governed by the rules. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the competent, authority prepares a waiting list then it is in respect of those ten seats only for which selection or competition was held. Reason for it is that whenever selection is held, except where it is for single post, it is normally held by taking into account not only the number of vacancies existing on the date when advertisement is issued or applications are invited but even those which are likely to arise in future within one year or so due to retirement etc. It is more so where selections are held regularly by the Commission. Such lists are prepared either under the rules or even otherwise mainly to ensure that the working in the office does not suffer if the selected candidates do not join for one or the other reason or the next selection or examination is not held soon. A candidate in the waiting list in the order of merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one or the other selected candidate does not join. But once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason within the period the list is to operate under the rules or within reasonable period where no specific period is provided then candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was held for it. She has no vested right except to the limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous reasons. 9. A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. She has no vested right except to the limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous reasons. 9. 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. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list, in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service.” 8. In the case of State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma and another, AIR 2001 SC 2900 , the Supreme Court observed that no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising out of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. It was also observed that with the appointment of the candidates for the posts the lists gets exhausted and subsequent vacancy caused due to resignation becomes future vacancy and candidate figuring in waiting list has no legally protected right to get appointed to any vacancy arising subsequently. It would be profitable to reproduce Paragraph no. 4 of the judgment as hereunder:- “4. It would be profitable to reproduce Paragraph no. 4 of the judgment as hereunder:- “4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, in our view, the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cannot be sustained. As rightly contended for the appellant-State, the Notification issued inviting applications was in respect of one post and the first candidate in the select panel was not only offered but on his acceptance of offer came to be appointed and it was only subsequently that he came to resign. With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising out of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. The Circular orders dated 22-3-1957 in our view, relates to select panels prepared by the Public Service Commission and not a panel of the nature under consideration. That apart, even as per the Circular orders as also the decision relied upon for the first respondent, no claim can be asserted and countenanced for appointment after the expiry of six months. We find no rhyme or reason for such a claim to be enforced before Courts, leave alone there being any legally protected right in the first respondent to get appointed to any vacancy arising subsequently, when somebody else was appointed by the process of promotion taking into account his experience and needs as well as administrative exigencies.” 9. Recruitment process, as is well known, must be commensurate with the statue or the statutory rule operating in the field. Recruitment process, as is well known, must be commensurate with the statue or the statutory rule operating in the field. A mere look at the rule 14 (7) of The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010, regarding procedure for preparation of select lists by the Board shows that pursuant to the requisition to be forwarded by the Government to the Board for initiating the recruitment process, if the Board has prepared the merit list and the waiting list of selected candidates such list will have a life of one year from the date the original select list is sent to the requisitioning authority. But such a merit list will have a maximum life of one year from the date of publication or till all the required appointments are made whichever event happened earlier. The selection committee shall not maintain or recommend any select or waiting list for any future vacancy caused on account of resignation by any selectee after appointment. In the event, thereafter, if further vacancies are to be filled in or remaining vacancies are to be filled in, after one year, a fresh process of recruitment is to be initiated giving a fresh opportunity to all the open market candidates to compete. Rule 14(7) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 reads as under:- 14 (7). The concerned Selection Committees of the Board shall also draw up a waiting list of 25% of the total number of selected candidates and forward the same, through the Board, to the requisitioning authority for consideration against drop-out vacancies. The waiting list shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date the original select list is sent to the requisitioning authority. The Selection Committees shall not maintain or recommend any select or waiting list for any future vacancy or any vacancy caused on account of resignation by any selectee after appointment. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has heavily relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this court rendered in case of Ghulam Ahmed Malik and Ors. vs. State of J&K and Ors., 2006 KLJ 356. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has heavily relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this court rendered in case of Ghulam Ahmed Malik and Ors. vs. State of J&K and Ors., 2006 KLJ 356. It was held by Hon’ble Division Bench of this court that vacancies which have fallen vacant because of non-joining, death or resignation of the appointees within a period of one year from the date of recommendation by the Public Service Commission for appointment, shall become available to the candidates in the waiting list in the order of merit against their respective categories. However, subsequently, relying upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Raghbir Chand Sharma’s case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Renu Bala v. State of J&K and others; 2011(2) JKJ 42 [HC] held that after the selected candidate is appointed and joins on the post, the selection process came to an end and on the resignation of appointed candidate no other person can be appointed from the selection list. In the said judgment, the Division Bench also considered the binding effect of the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ghulam Ahmed Malik and others v. State of J&K and others; 2006 KLJ 356. After considering the case law on the subject the Division Bench found that the earlier Division Bench in the case of Gh. Ahmed Malik (supra) had not considered the principle of law enunciated by Supreme Court in Raghbir Chand Sharma’s case (supra). The Division Bench in the aforesaid case declared the judgment rendered by the earlier Division Bench in the case of Ghulam Ahmed Malik (supra) per incuriam. Paragraph No.29 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder for reference:- “29. A specific issue was raised in Gh. Ahmed’s case (supra) on the basis of law laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghbir Chand Sharma’s case (supra) that “after the selected candidate joins the post on his appointment, the selection panel gets exhausted and outlives its life and no one else in the panel could legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment in the vacancy arising on account of subsequent resignation of person appointed from the panel”. On the resignation of appointed candidate post become available for future selection and cannot be filled up by appointing candidate from earlier selection panel/wait list. This question of law was not related to the life of selection panel. The aforementioned principle of law enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Copurt in Raghbir Chand Sharma’s case (supra) on the issue has not been considered by Division Bench in Gh. Ahmed’s case (supra). The bench adverted its attention to the life span of selection panel. The said judgment in law will not constitute a binding precedent, but is a judgment rendered per-incuriam. The reliance placed on Gh. Ahmed’s case (supra) by ld. Counsel for appellant is accordingly of no consequence. The writ petition as also appeal merits dismissal.” 11. In view of clear position of law settled by the Apex Court as well as by our own High Court in Renu Bala’s Case (Supra) that the life of a panel ordinarily is one year and once selected candidates have been appointed, the select list comes to an end and it cannot be operated thereafter at all for any type of left out vacancies including vacancy caused due to resignation, which may be backlog/existing vacancies/future vacancies. Consequently, this petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IAs, if any.