ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the unsuccessful applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (‘KSAT’ for short) calling in question the order dated 16.07.2019 passed in Application No. 1164/2017. 2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petition are as under: By a Notification dated 04.08.2009, the 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). From the records it is evident that after the selection process was completed, the third respondent published a list of selected candidates on 17.03.2011. Accordingly, appointment orders were issued. Out of 101 selected candidates, 21 candidates did not report for duty. On account of vacancies, the second respondent-Commissioner for Excise, by his letter dated 05.07.2012 requested the third respondent to prepare the additional list. Pursuant to the direction, the third respondent issued a Notification dated 23.11.2012 notifying 11 candidates. Pursuant thereto, the present petitioner and other several applicants were called for verification of their certificates. Even after verification of their testimonials, the present petitioner and several other applicants did not receive their appointment orders. The second respondent on the contrary issued an endorsement dated 30.09.2014 stating that the additional list ceased to be ‘operative’ simultaneously with issuance of a subsequent notification. The present petitioner and similarly placed other applicants approached the KSAT inter-alia with a prayer to direct the respondents to issue appointment orders and also sought for quashing of the endorsement dated 30.09.2014 issued by the second respondent. 3. On consideration of the material on record and reasoning recorded therein, the KSAT dismissed the application. The present petitioner and other applicants being aggrieved by the order of the KSAT dated 09.08.2016 approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 52931-52936/2016. The present petitioner was arrayed as petitioner No. 1 in the said writ petitions. This Court while examining the rights of the petitioner and other applicants in W.P.Nos.52931- 52936/2016 rejected the writ petition insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. 52931-52936/2016. The present petitioner was arrayed as petitioner No. 1 in the said writ petitions. This Court while examining the rights of the petitioner and other applicants in W.P.Nos.52931- 52936/2016 rejected the writ petition insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. At Para 12 of the writ petitions, this Court has recorded a finding that since the petitioner was dropped from the additional list and same is upheld by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2016 in W.P. No. 52929/2016, his case cannot be examined. This Court proceeded to examine the rights of the other petitioners and consequently allowed the writ petitions directing the respondent-State to consider the case of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 in the said writ petitions. 4. It would be relevant to note that during the pendency of the writ petitions pending before this Court in W.P. Nos. 52931-52936/2016, the third respondent having received the requisition submitted by the present petitioner herein on 08.08.2016 examined the same and rejected the claim of the petitioner by endorsement dated 29.08.2016. In the endorsement, the third respondent communicated the present petitioner that his case cannot be considered since in the revised additional list one Manjunath H.S. who also secured 142 marks is senior to the present petitioner and his date of birth being 06.01.1982 as against the petitioner’s date of birth which is 06.11.1984, the present petitioner would not be eligible for selection. The third respondent also communicated in the said endorsement that the revised selection main list and additional list published by the Commission on 04.08.2016 is in order. 5. Being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 29.08.2016 as per Annexure-A11, the present petitioner approached the KSAT by filing an application in Application No. 1164/2017. 6. The contention of the petitioner before the KSAT was that pursuant to the order passed by the KSAT in Application No. 7225/2010, the selection list or additional selection were never disturbed by the KSAT and the KSAT while allowing Application No. 7225/2010 had only issued a direction to appoint the fourth respondent and as such, the order passed in Application No. 7225/2010 would in no way affect the petitioner who is already included in the additional select list. As such, the deletion of the petitioner from the additional list was totally unwarranted and arbitrary and hence, requested the KSAT to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for selection and appointment as Sub- Inspector (Excise) in terms of the additional select list dated 23.11.2012 and also sought for quashing of the endorsement dated 29.08.2016 issued by the third respondent. 7. The KSAT on appreciation of the material on record, proceeded to hold that one H.S. Manjunath with date of birth as 06.01.1982 had also secured 142 marks and the present petitioner who has secured 142 marks is younger to the said Manjunath H.S. In this background, the KSAT was of the view that since one Manjunath H.S. is selected ahead of the present petitioner on meritorious ground, the question of including the present petitioner in the revised additional list would not survive even if Sharath Kumar who was included in the revised additional list did not join. The KSAT was of the view that it cannot go on directing the selection authority to prepare the revised list on account of vacancies created by the selected candidates not joining. The KSAT was of the view that selection for appointment process has to reach finality. Based on these set of reasoning, the KSAT rejected the application which is questioned before this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend before us that selection list of 2012 and additional select list have remained untouched. While marshalling his arguments, he would take us to the records furnished along with writ petition and would vehemently contend that D.P. Sharath Kumar who was in the additional list at S. No. 2 with 143 marks belong to 3A category did not appear for verification of documents, since he was already appointed as Sub-Inspector (Excise). This material aspect was brought to the notice of third respondent by the petitioner by way of representation dated 08.08.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also vehemently argue that the petitioner has secured same marks as that of H.S. Manjunath and also belongs to 3A category and as such, would argue that he is entitled to be included in the place of Sri H.S. Manjunath. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also vehemently argue that the petitioner has secured same marks as that of H.S. Manjunath and also belongs to 3A category and as such, would argue that he is entitled to be included in the place of Sri H.S. Manjunath. 10. Per contra, learned AGA would support the order of the KSAT and would submit to this Court that the petitioner’s name though was included in the first additional list, his name was rightly deleted from the revised additional list, since one Manjunath H.S. who had secured 142 marks is senior to the present petitioner who is born on 06.01.1982 and accordingly, he has been selected. 11. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the present petitioner is less meritorious than the candidates included in his category in the additional list. It is seen that the petitioner has secured only 142 marks as against 159 marks obtained by fourth respondent, whose name was included in the revised main list. It is also seen that one Sharath Kumar has secured 143 marks and his name was included in the revised additional list dated 04.08.2016. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, his name was rightly deleted in view of inclusion of Sri H.S. Manjunath, who had also secured 142 marks and is senior to the present petitioner. The said Manjunath who is selected ahead of the present petitioner with date of birth as 06.01.1982, whereas the present petitioner’s date of birth is 06.11.1984 and hence, he is much younger to Sri H.S. Manjunath. The name of the petitioner was dropped from the revised additional list and the third respondent has prepared the additional revised list after meticulously examining the present reservation rules and also in terms of the directions issued by the KSAT in Application No. 7225/2010 dated 19.02.2016. 12. The short question that would arise before this Court is, whether the petitioner can insist and seek a mandamus from the KSAT and this Court to direct the authorities to prepare one more additional list on account of further vacancies? 13. 12. The short question that would arise before this Court is, whether the petitioner can insist and seek a mandamus from the KSAT and this Court to direct the authorities to prepare one more additional list on account of further vacancies? 13. On examination of the findings recorded by the KSAT, we are of the view that the process for selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vacancies would not in any way create a right to the appointed post and the candidate whose names are notified in the selection list would not acquire any right to the post and as such, the same cannot be enforced by way of a mandamus. The endorsement issued by the third respondent as per Annexure-A11 to the writ petition dated 29.08.2016 which was questioned by the present petitioner before the KSAT was in fact issued when the writ petition filed by the present petitioner and other applicants was pending before this Court in W.P. Nos. 52931-52936/2016. This Court has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. The third respondent by endorsement dated 29.08.2016 which was questioned before the KSAT assigned reasons for dropping the name of the petitioner herein. What is borne from the records is that it is not the case of the petitioner that candidates lower in merit have been appointed or that the parties have indulged in pick and choose method ignoring merit. The present petitioner cannot go on insisting the authorities to come up with an additional revised list on account of unfilled vacancies. A candidate would not have any legal right to seek a writ in the nature of mandamus unless there is discrimination or arbitrariness in regard to filling up of vacancies. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner while marshalling his argument has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5444/2019. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the top noted case, but the proposition laid down in the above said judgment is not at all applicable to the present case on hand. In the present case, the notification for filling up 101 posts of Sub-Inspector (Excise) was called for by notification dated 04.08.2009. The main list of selected candidates was published on 17.03.2011. In the present case, the notification for filling up 101 posts of Sub-Inspector (Excise) was called for by notification dated 04.08.2009. The main list of selected candidates was published on 17.03.2011. On account of 21 candidates out of 100 selected in the main list did not accept the appointment, the third respondent issued an additional select list dated 23.11.2012. Pursuant to some directions by the KSAT, it appears there was one more revised additional list dated 04.08.2016. When these aspects are taken into note, the petitioner cannot insist the authorities to prepare the revised list again and again based on vacancies created on account of selected candidates not joining. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122 , has held that the process for selection and selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post and the same cannot be sought to be enforced by way of a mandamus. Further, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 , has held that ordinarily a notification for an appointment 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. 16. In the present case on hand, the authorities have prepared additional list, then a revised list. It is to be noted that the main list of selected candidates was published on 17.03.2011 and the authorities, in all fairness, have dealt with vacancies created therein and the last revised additional list is dated 04.08.2016. In that view of the matter, the authorities have dealt with vacancies, in all fairness, by considering the comparative merit of the candidates and there is absolutely no material to indicate any discrimination. The petitioner cannot go on litigating seeking a mandamus against the respondents as he has no legal right for obtaining a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking direction against the authorities to fill the vacancies. 17. The petitioner cannot go on litigating seeking a mandamus against the respondents as he has no legal right for obtaining a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking direction against the authorities to fill the vacancies. 17. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has been dropped on meritorious grounds and in that view of the matter, the KSAT has rightly rejected the application by recording a finding that selection authority cannot go on adding persons whose names are not found in the revised additional list. The KSAT while rejecting the application has found that there are no valid grounds for interference with the endorsement issued by the third respondent as per Annexure-A11 to the writ petition. 18. We do not find any infirmities in the reasoning assigned by the KSAT in rejecting the application. Writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.