ORDER : – The State of Madhya Pradesh through its Finance Department has filed these writ appeals against the common order dated 4-12-2019 passed by the writ Court whereby W. P. Nos. 15351/2018, 15269/2018, 15291/2018, 15338/2018, 15397/2018 and 15477/2018 have been allowed. The facts of the case, in short, are as under : The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short : MPPSC) issued an advertisement on 29-10-2015 inviting applications for appointment on 128 posts of Treasury Officer/Account Officer/Assistant Director in the Finance Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh. The respondents/writ petitioners applied under the said advertisement and they were permitted to appear in the written examination followed by a personal interview. They all were declared qualified for appointment in the respective posts but kept in the waiting list. The MPPSC invited them to participate in the process of counselling followed by verification of documents. Vide different orders dated 11-10-2017, 30-10-2017, 5-12-2017 and 23-12-2017 the State Government appointed 111 candidates against 128 sanctioned posts. After joining, some of the selected candidates resigned from their respective posts. Since the petitioners were placed in the waiting list, hence, on account of the resignation of the candidates after the issuance of the appointment order, they claimed appointment on their respective posts. 2. The petitioners have relied on the circular dated 14-7-2016 issued by the General Administration Department of the State whereby an earlier circular dated 7-3-2012 has been amended and by virtue of which the posts falling vacant on account of contingencies such as non-joining, resignation, death, etc. will be filled from the candidates of the waiting list. Some of the candidates who have been selected in the examination conducted in 2015 have resigned from their respective posts by virtue of their selection in the year 2014. When no appointment was offered to the writ petitioners despite their names appearing in the waiting list, they approached this Court by way of aforesaid writ petitions. 3. In the writ petitions, the appellant/State filed the reply contending that in the light of the circular dated 14-8-2013 issued by the GAD the period of validity of the select list is one year which is liable to be extendable for another six months and the period of validity of the waiting list is for one year and six months. In the writ petitions, the appellant/State filed the reply contending that in the light of the circular dated 14-8-2013 issued by the GAD the period of validity of the select list is one year which is liable to be extendable for another six months and the period of validity of the waiting list is for one year and six months. In the present case, the select list was received from the MPPSC in the month of May, 2017, hence it remained valid up to May, 2018, whereas the petitioners did not raise their claim within the validity period, hence, they have no right to claim appointment. 4. The MPPSC also filed the reply by submitting that after the written, as well as oral examinations the result of the selection was declared on 19-4-2017. The recommendation letter was sent on 19-4-2017 to the concerned department. Due to some computer mistake, 15 candidates could not be declared eligible for interview. The amended select list was declared on 13-8-2017 after cancelling the previous select list dated 19-4-2017. It is further submitted that the validity of the main select list was up to 21-7-2018 and the validity of the waiting list was up to 21-1-2019. Since respondent No. 1/State did not send any proposal or request to the MPPSC for sending the names of the candidates from the waiting list, therefore, no appointment could be given to the petitioners. The petitioners being waiting list candidates have no indefeasible right for appointment. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Despite the service of notices to the private respondents in the petitions, they did not choose to appear before the writ Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Writ Court has held that the candidates who were appointed to the respective posts have resigned from the posts even after joining, and then petitioners are entitled to the appointment on the said vacant posts. It has also been held that out of 111 filled posts some selected candidates have resigned from their posts after joining hence same vacant posts are also liable to be filled from the waiting list of candidates like writ petitioners in the light of circulars dated 7-3-2012 and 14-7-2016. It has also been held that out of 111 filled posts some selected candidates have resigned from their posts after joining hence same vacant posts are also liable to be filled from the waiting list of candidates like writ petitioners in the light of circulars dated 7-3-2012 and 14-7-2016. Learned Writ Court also held that although the main select list remained valid for a period of one year and could be extended for a further period of six months, the present petitioners had already approached this High Court on 10-7-2017 i.e. prior to the expiry of the select list. Accordingly, the learned Writ Court issued a writ directing the appellant/State to give appointment to the writ petitions on their respective posts. Hence, the present writ appeals before this Court. 6. Shri Shreya Raj Saxena, learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the appellant/State submitted that the learned Writ Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the final select list sent by MPPSC was received in the office of GAD was valid up to May, 2018, whereas the petition was filed in the month of July, 2018 i.e. after the expiry of its validity period. Even otherwise, the petitioners who are placed in the waiting list have no right to claim an appointment as a vested right. Learned Writ Court has erred in not appreciating that the vacancies of the said posts for direct recruitments had already been filled in and in view of the Management of Madhya Pradesh Financial Cadre, it has been decided to select the candidates of Examination 2015 from the main select list only. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim an appointment as a matter of right. Now the vacant seats became available due to non-joining or resignations of selected candidates are liable to be re-advertised as by efflux of time and the validity of the waiting list for appointment of the petitioners had already expired long back. 7. Shri Aniket A. Naik learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners has argued in support of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court. According to him, once the seats have fallen vacant due to resignation or non-joining, the appellant/State should have immediately taken the names of the candidates from the waiting list and should have issued appointment orders. Shri Aniket A. Naik learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners has argued in support of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court. According to him, once the seats have fallen vacant due to resignation or non-joining, the appellant/State should have immediately taken the names of the candidates from the waiting list and should have issued appointment orders. There was no need for the petitioners to claim an appointment by submitting an application or representation to the appellant/State. The very purpose of preparation of the waiting list is to select the candidates in case of resignation or non-joining or death of the candidates from the main select list. There is absolutely no bar in appointing the candidates from the waiting list in the recruitment rules. Hence, the writ appeals are misconceived and are liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, Shri Naik learned counsel for the writ petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Manu vs. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 171 ; Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association vs. State of Gujarat, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591; and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs. South East Central Railway and others, AIR 2019 SC 24 . Learned counsel has also placed reliance on sub-rule (3)(d)(i) and (vi) of Rule 4 of Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015, which mandates preparation of supplementary/waiting list and according to which, a supplementary (waiting) list for each post to the extent of 25% of the total number of candidates figuring in the main list shall be prepared. It further says that the candidates on the waiting list shall be appointed as per the order of the waiting list only when candidates mentioned in the main list have not joined the post. 8. Shri V. P. Khare, learned counsel appearing for respondent/MPPSC though argued in support of the arguments advanced by the learned Dy. Advocate General, but after arguing for some time, prayed for withdrawal of the writ appeals filed on behalf of the MPPSC challenging the same impugned order passed by the learned writ Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that the MPPSC issued the advertisement dated 29-10-2015 and conducted the examination for the posts mentioned above. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that the MPPSC issued the advertisement dated 29-10-2015 and conducted the examination for the posts mentioned above. The respondents/writ petitioners participated in the examination and the selection process and their names were included in the supplementary/waiting list after the main select list. The examination was conducted by the MPPSC and the result was declared under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh State Services Examination Rules, 2015. Rule 4 prescribes the mode of preparation of the select list. Sub-rule 3(d)(i) of Rule 4 provides preparation of a supplementary/waiting list for each post to the extent of 25% of the total number of candidates. Sub-rule 3(d)(vi) specifically provides that the candidates of the waiting list shall be appointed as per the order of the waiting list only when candidates mentioned in the main list have not joined the post. After joining the post, if the post becomes vacant due to resignation or otherwise, even in the validity period of the main list, the appointment shall not be made from the waiting list. Therefore, the writ petitioners have only the right to claim an appointment in case the candidate mentioned in the main list did not join the post. The appellant/State is not disputing that the writ petitioners are meritorious candidates and their names are included in the supplementary/waiting list. According to the appellant/State, the list of the candidates was received from MPPSC in the month of May, 2017 i.e. within one year of the validity period, whereas the respondents/writ petitioners approached this Court in the month of July, 2018. 10. The appellant/State has only contended in the return filed in writ petitions that after qualifying in the examination, 111 candidates find a place in the main select list and only they were given the appointment and the rest of the candidates who were in the waiting list have not been given appointments. The appellant/State has placed reliance on the management of Madhya Pradesh Financial Services Cadre and that it has been decided to select the candidates of Examination 2015 from the main select list only, but no such Financial Cadre has been filed either before the Writ Court or before this Court. 11. The personal interviews were held from 1-3-2017 to 7-4-2017 and thereafter, the result was declared on 19-4-2017. 11. The personal interviews were held from 1-3-2017 to 7-4-2017 and thereafter, the result was declared on 19-4-2017. The amended select list was declared on 13-7-2017. Again, the recommendation letter dated 21-7-2018 was sent to the Government by the MPPSC hence the period of validity of the waiting list was extended up to 21-1-2019. The petitioners filed the writ petition on 10-7-2018 i.e. prior to the expiry period of one year from the date of declaration of the result. Even the GAD circular dated 14-7-2016 and Madhya Pradesh State Services Examination Rules, 2015 provide that if the selected candidate did not join the post for certain eventuality, then the candidate from the waiting list shall be appointed. The Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) in the ratio of 2:1 has held that those who are successful and declared to be passed have a reasonable expectation that they will be appointed. No doubt, this is not a vested right, however, the State must give some justifiable, non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the post. Para 7 of the said judgment is reproduced below : “7. Our country is governed by the rule of law. Arbitrariness is an anathema to the rule of law. When an employer invites applications for filling up a large number of posts, a large number of unemployed youth apply for the same. They spend time in filling the form and pay the application fees. Thereafter, they spend time to prepare for the examination. They spend time and money to travel to the place where written test is held. If they qualify the written test they have to again travel to appear for the interview and medical examination etc. Those who are successful and declared to be passed have a reasonable expectation that they will be appointed. No doubt, as pointed out above, this is not a vested right. However, the State must give some justifiable, non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the post. When the employer is the State it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot without any rhyme or reason decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible reason for not filling up the posts. However, the State must give some justifiable, non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the post. When the employer is the State it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot without any rhyme or reason decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible reason for not filling up the posts. The Courts would normally not question the justification but the justification must be reasonable and should not be an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion vested in the State It is in the light of these principles that we need to examine the contentions of the SECR.” 12. The Apex Court in the case of Manoj Manu (supra) has held in Para 12 as under : “12. It is, thus, manifest that a person whose name is included in the select list, does not acquire any right to be appointed. The Government may decide not to fill up all the vacancies for valid reasons. Such a decision on the part of the Government not to fill up the required/ advertised vacancies should not be arbitrary or unreasonable but must be based on sound, rational and conscious application of mind. Once it is found that the decision of the Government is based on some valid reason, the Court would not issue any mandamus to the Government to fill up the vacancies.” 13. The Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association (supra) has held in Para 8 and 9 as under : “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. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. 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 a 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 the 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.” In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the writ Court and these writ appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Let a photocopy of this order be retained in each connected writ appeal.