JUDGMENT : (1) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforementioned writ petitions, therefore, the same are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience. (2) By means of Writ Petition no. 2631 (S/S) of 2017 and Writ Petition no. 2632 (S/S) of 2017, the petitioners namely, Ajab Singh and Km. Anchala Pundir seek writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order/letter dated 22nd July 2017 (contained as Annexure nos. 7 and 8 respectively), passed by the respondent. Writ Petition no. 2633 (S/S) of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner Ashwani Kumar seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order/letter dated 17.08.2017 (contained as Annexure no. 8 to the writ petition), passed by the respondent. A further prayer has been made in the aforementioned writ petitions for commanding the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner(s) for their appointment on the posts of Instructor (Machinist), Instructor (Kala Ganit) and Instructor (Welder) respectively against the vacant posts. (3) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. (4) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent issued an advertisement no. 01/104/2010 in daily newspapers Dainik Jagaran and Amar Ujala on 19th and 20th June 2010 inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Instructor in the Govt. Industrial Training Institutes in the State of Uttarakhand and the last date of submission of forms was fixed as 13.07.2010. In pursuance of said advertisement, petitioner(s) applied for the said posts and appeared in the examination held on 14.08.2010. The result was declared on 27.08.2010 and, thereafter a waiting list was issued on 28.08.2010. In the waiting list, names of the petitioner(s) were shown as selected candidates for the appointment on the posts of Instructor for the trades for which they have applied, in the General Category in the Industrial training Institutes of the State of Uttarakhand. It is specifically mentioned in the waiting list dated 28.08.2010 that these posts, which are lying vacant, will be filled up from the waiting list as per merit. The petitioner(s) waited for quite sometime hoping for their consideration under the waiting list for the appointment on the posts for which they have applied. It is specifically mentioned in the waiting list dated 28.08.2010 that these posts, which are lying vacant, will be filled up from the waiting list as per merit. The petitioner(s) waited for quite sometime hoping for their consideration under the waiting list for the appointment on the posts for which they have applied. Subsequently, the petitioners came to know that some posts are lying vacant against the trade for which they have applied. It is alleged in the aforementioned writ petitions that the petitioner(s) being select candidates of the waiting list are still waiting for their appointments against the vacant posts, but the respondent is not paying any heed to fill up those vacant post from the waiting list. (5) It is also alleged in all the writ petition that one Anil Kumar, who was the selected candidate in waiting list, filed a Writ Petition no. 1979 (S/S) of 2013, Anil Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, before this Court and the Court was pleased to allow the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 06.05.2014 and directed the respondent to give appointment to Anil Kumar as early as possible, but definitely within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. In compliance of said judgment and order, the respondent has given appointment to Anil Kumar in the year 2015. It is also alleged that the respondent is deliberately not taking any action to fill up the vacant posts from the waiting list, despite the fact that eligible candidates are available for appointment on the post of Instructors in different trades. It is further alleged that respondent wrote a letter dated 23.04.2014 to the Additional Secretary, Training and Technical Education, Uttarakhand Government, Dehradun, whereby request has been made to take decision regarding appointments of the candidates on the vacant posts from the waiting list, but to no avail. (6) It is further mentioned in the aforementioned writ petition that the petitioner(s) earlier filed WPSS no. 507 of 2016, Ajab Singh vs. Director, Employment and Training Directorate, Uttarakhand; WPSS no. 1159 of 2015, Km. Anchala Pundir vs. Director, Employment and Training Directorate, Uttarakhand and WPSS no. 1653 of 2016, Ashwani Kumar vs. Director, Employment and Training Directorate, Uttarakhand. WPSS no. 507 of 2016 and WPSS no. 507 of 2016, Ajab Singh vs. Director, Employment and Training Directorate, Uttarakhand; WPSS no. 1159 of 2015, Km. Anchala Pundir vs. Director, Employment and Training Directorate, Uttarakhand and WPSS no. 1653 of 2016, Ashwani Kumar vs. Director, Employment and Training Directorate, Uttarakhand. WPSS no. 507 of 2016 and WPSS no. 1159 of 2015 were disposed of with the direction to the respondent to consider the cases of the petitioner(s), if their names figured in the waiting list, within a period of eight weeks from today. WPSS no. 1653 of 2016 was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to Director, Training and Employment, within two weeks from today. It was further directed that if such representation is made, Director, Training and Employment, shall decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order. It is alleged in these writ petitions that respondent vide impugned orders dated 22.07.2017 and 17.08.2017 has rejected the request of the petitioner(s) for considering their appointment on the posts of Instructor in respect of the trades for which they have applied, and despite the fact that their names find place in the waiting list, the respondent has illegally and in an arbitrary manner denied the appointment to the petitioners. Hence, aforementioned writ petitions. (7) In the counter affidavit, the State has taken the same stand that the appointment could not have been given to the petitioner(s) as the waiting list survives for one year and it does not survive beyond the period of one year. (8) Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contended that aforementioned writ petitions are squarely covered by the judgment dated 06.05.2014, passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition no. 1979 (S/S) of 2013, Anil Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. He would further submit that the petitioner(s) are entitled to the same relief. Learned counsel for the petitioners(s) placed reliance on the following paragraphs of the said judgment: “6. Select list was declared on 28.08.2010 and the petitioner moved the writ petition in the year 2013. 1979 (S/S) of 2013, Anil Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. He would further submit that the petitioner(s) are entitled to the same relief. Learned counsel for the petitioners(s) placed reliance on the following paragraphs of the said judgment: “6. Select list was declared on 28.08.2010 and the petitioner moved the writ petition in the year 2013. The stand of the petitioner in this regard seems to be wrong, inasmuch as, there were 23 posts of Schedule Caste candidates for the post of Instructor out of which 19 posts were filled and 04 posts remained vacant, a fact which is admitted by the respondents. It is not the case of the respondents that selected candidates joined these posts and thereafter had resigned from the post and the vacancies arose because of their resignation. Therefore, the period of limitation for one year for the waiting list actually starts from the date, the entire select list has been filled up. This occasion in the present case has never arose as till 16th December, 2012 respondents were requesting the selected candidates to join the posts, in other words the vacancies had not filled up. 7. In view thereof, to take a stand now that the waiting list cannot operate beyond one year is wholly incorrect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of J&K & others vs. Satpal, rendered in Civil Appeal no. 938-939 of 2013 [arose out of SLP(C) nos. 31591-31592 of 2012] has held that:- “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 rooms 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. The existence of a waiting list, allows rooms 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 22.04.2008. 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 22.04.2008, because the vacancy was offered to Trilok Nath on 22.04.2008. 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 23.08.2011 (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, in so far as the present controversy is concerned.” 8. In the above referred case as well as here before this Court, the stand taken by the respondents was that the petitioner’s case could not be considered as the waiting list does not survive beyond the period of one year. All the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the above matter that since the waiting list will only commence to operate after the vacancies have been filled up and that occasion had yet not arrived, the “one year period” did not even start to operate. All the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the above matter that since the waiting list will only commence to operate after the vacancies have been filled up and that occasion had yet not arrived, the “one year period” did not even start to operate. Based on the same logic, present writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as early as possible but definitely within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” (10) It is stated that the judgment dated 06.05.2014 passed by learned Single Judge has attained finality [upheld upto the Hon’ble Apex Court]. (11) The said judgment was considered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WPSS no. 785 of 2014, Vinod Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. Special appeal filed by the State against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11.11.2014, passed in WPSS no. 785 of 2014, was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 08.10.2018, in Special Appeal no. 422 of 2015 (State of Uttarakhand and another vs. Vinod Kumar). The decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal no. 422 of 2015 has attained finality. (12) Learned counsel for the respondent State fairly conceded that the controversy involved in the aforementioned writ petitions are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge as well as the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. (13) Furthermore, since the appointments have been made from the select list as well as from the waiting list, therefore, the respondent cannot deny appointment to the petitioner(s) on the ground that the life of the waiting list is one year only. A waiting list is also a select list. If a candidate of select list declines to join or at subsequent stage at the time of offering the appointment, he could not be given appointment, the post remains vacant and should be filled from the waiting list. The respondent cannot adopt pick and choose policy to give appointments to the selected candidates from the select list or from the waiting list. As soon as the appointment is offered the entire select list as well as the waiting list should be exhausted. The respondent cannot adopt pick and choose policy to give appointments to the selected candidates from the select list or from the waiting list. As soon as the appointment is offered the entire select list as well as the waiting list should be exhausted. Since the same has not been exhausted by the respondent, thus the respondent cannot take the benefit of its own wrong and deny appointment to the candidates from the waiting list. (14) Accordingly, the aforementioned writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders/letters dated 22.07.2017 and 17.08.2017, passed by the respondent, are hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner(s) on the posts of Instructor, in the respective trades for which they have applied, in the General Category, in the Industrial Training Institutes of the State of Uttarakhand, within a period of three months from today. Parties shall bear their own costs.