ORDER : After having done diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering from Himachal Pradesh Takniki Shiksha Board, petitioner herein made an application for the post of Trainer Information Communication Technology System and Maintenance, pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondent-department in August, 2019. On 16.10.2019, petitioner was declared successful in the screening test held at Kangra and thereafter, he was asked to appear for evaluation and document verification at Sundernagar. On 28.11.2019, petitioner presented himself at sunderngar for evaluation and document verification and he was awarded 6.35 marks out of 15 marks. On 6.11.2020, respondent issued letter to the petitioner asking him to attend office for verification of educational qualification and other testimonial/certificates. Though, pursuant to aforesaid call given by respondent No.2, petitioner attended the office of respondent No.2 on 11.11.2020, but despite verification of her documents, he was not offered appointment against the post in question. On 12.3.2021, petitioner was informed under the RTI that petitioner could not be offered appointment on account of modal code of conduct imposed in light of elections of various Panchayati Raj of Institutions in HP and panel has exhausted on 3.1.2021 after expiry of one year. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief : “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to offer appointment to the present petitioner for the post of trainer information and communication technology system maintenance under the post code 128 immediately.” 2. Reply to the petition stands filed, wherein factum with regard to the participation of the petitioner in the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement issued in August, 2019, has been duly admitted. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated in their reply that final result of the selection process under reference was declared vide office order dated 3.1.2020, whereby Trainers in different trades were engaged under students Welfare Fund. Persons namely Sh. Anil Jagota, Sh. Himanshu Sharma and Ms. Richa Guleria were shown at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3, respectively, in the merit list drawn in trade of Information, Communication, Technology System and Maintenance, qua which trade, petitioner had also applied. Since Sh. Anil Jagota, who was at serial No.1 in the merit list did not join the service, person figuring at Sr. Himanshu Sharma and Ms. Richa Guleria were shown at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3, respectively, in the merit list drawn in trade of Information, Communication, Technology System and Maintenance, qua which trade, petitioner had also applied. Since Sh. Anil Jagota, who was at serial No.1 in the merit list did not join the service, person figuring at Sr. No.1 of the waiting list was offered appointment against the post in question, however, other selected candidates namely Himanshu Sharma and Richa Guleria, after having joined the post in question resigned on 27.7.2020 and 9.7.2020, respectively, as is evident from Annexure R-2 annexed with the reply filed by the respondents. On account of aforesaid development, the respondent department called three persons from the waiting list for joining against the aforesaid three posts. Person figuring at Sr. No.1 of the waiting list did not respond to the call given by the respondent-department and as such, person next to him in the waiting list came to be appointed against the post of Mr. Anil Jagota, who after having selected had not joined. 3. Precisely, case of the petitioner, who is at Sr. No.3 of the waiting list is that since other two posts had fallen vacant on account of resignations tendered by Sh. Himanshu Sharma and Ms. Richa Guleria, department ought to have offered him appoint against one of the post. However, aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that two posts fell vacant on account of resignation tendered by Sh. Himanshu Sharma and Ms. Richa Guleria and as such, person figuring in the waiting list could not have been offered appointment against such post, rather to fill up such posts, department is /was under obligation to start fresh selection process. Since person namely Anil Jagota, who was at Serial No. 1 in the merit list, did not join, department rightly offered his post to a person figuring at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list. 4. It is well settled by now that in case selected candidate after his/her selection joins the post in question and thereafter, resigns, respondent department concerned would not fill up such posts amongst the candidates figuring in the waiting list, rather in that eventuality, department is required to initiate fresh selection process. No.1 in the waiting list. 4. It is well settled by now that in case selected candidate after his/her selection joins the post in question and thereafter, resigns, respondent department concerned would not fill up such posts amongst the candidates figuring in the waiting list, rather in that eventuality, department is required to initiate fresh selection process. No doubt, in the case at hand, department, after resignation of two selected candidates called the petitioner for verification of documents, but mere verification of documents, if any, by the department would not confer any right in favour of the petitioner to be selected against the post, which otherwise is required to be filled up by initiating fresh selection process. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Raj Rishi Mehra and Ors v. State of Punjab and Anr, 2013 (12) SC 243, has held as under: “15. The question whether the candidates whose names are included in the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts as of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri 1992 Supp (3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and others 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others (1994) 1 SCC 126 , Prem Singh and others v. Haryana SEB and others 1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others (1996) 1 SCC 283 , Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (1997) 8 SCC 488 , Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486 , Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others (1998) 3 SCC 45 , State of J&K and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others (2005) 4 SCC 148 , State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others (2006) 3 SCC 330 , Ram Avtar Patwari and others v. State of Haryana and others 2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others (2010) 2 SCC 637 . 16. In Surinder Singh’s case, this Court observed as under: "A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. 16. In Surinder Singh’s case, this Court observed as under: "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 17. In Rakhi Ray’s case, this Court referred to a number of judicial precedents and held : “It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as “the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution”, 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. 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, such a rule can be deviated from and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rationale”, otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in law.” 6. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically laid down that a waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment, rather it is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then a person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused. Once the appointments are made against the advertised posts, the select list gets exhausted and those who are placed below the last appointee cannot claim appointment against the posts, which subsequently become available, especially on account of resignation tendered by the selected candidate. 7. While inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-3 i.e. information received by the petitioner under RTI, Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that since Ms. Richa Guleria, was absent on the date when documents were being verified, it is not understood that how, subsequently, she was shown to be a selected candidate. No doubt, perusal of aforesaid document (Annexure P-3-T) reveals that person namely Ms. Richa Guleria was absent on the date when documents furnished by the candidates were scrutinized/verified, but record made available to this Court by the respondents further reveals that there were many candidates, who could not come present for verification of their documents on the date fixed by the department, but subsequently, on their being submitted representations, they were afforded an opportunity to get their documents verified/scrutinized. Similarly, in the cases of Richa Guleria, who was one of the selected candidates, opportunity was afforded by the department to her for getting her documents verified and department having found her more meritorious offered her appointment. Similarly, in the cases of Richa Guleria, who was one of the selected candidates, opportunity was afforded by the department to her for getting her documents verified and department having found her more meritorious offered her appointment. Since Richa Guleria, has already resigned and is no more in the service coupled with the fact that waiting list drawn at the time of the selection has been exhausted after an expiry of one year, otherwise, there appears to be no reason for this court to go into this question at this stage. 8. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law taken note herein above, this Court sees no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.