JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as primary teachers along with appointed candidates as per the letter dated 22.11.2016 issued by the Secretariat (Tribal Affairs & Hills), Government of Manipur, as they are higher in order of merit as well as similarly situated based on the letter dated 22.4.2010. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the Chief Executive Officer, Autonomous District Council, Chandel, Manipur, requested the District Employment Exchange to sponsor eligible candidates for direct recruitment for appointment of primary teachers against 159 posts of primary teachers and instructions was notified for public information vide letter dated 23.1.2010. As per the above said letter, 519 select list for the post of primary teachers with further 74 wait list was notified as approved candidates. As per the notification, written examinations and interviews thereto were conducted and the select list and wait list were also submitted to the Government for approval. By the letter dated 20.4.2010, the Government conveyed approval of the DPC proceedings for appointment of 519 primary teachers and 74 approved wait list primary teachers. The petitioners are all candidates amongst the 74 wait listed primary teachers. 3. Further case of the petitioners is that from the said wait list, 14 candidates were later on appointed as primary teachers with effect from the date of joining service vide separate orders dated 22.4.2010 and 533 newly appointed primary school teachers who are enjoying the Government service. Meanwhile, 60 wait listed candidates from Serial 15 to 74, which includes the petitioners, have been kept waiting for their appointment despite the fact that there are 843 sanctioned posts less 716 present strength of 127 posts of primary teachers lying vacant in the Autonomous District Council, Chandel. 4. According to the petitioners, on the 14 appointed candidates from the wait list, only 4 candidates i.e. Serial No.1 to 4 were appointed against the plan education expenditure and the rest 10 i.e. from Serial No.5 to 14 were appointed against non-planned expenditure which still has 127 posts of primary teachers lying vacant against its head. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the petitioners cannot be appointed against these 127 existing vacancy. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the petitioners cannot be appointed against these 127 existing vacancy. Aggrieved by the act of the respondents, the petitioners have submitted a representation on 3.2.2011 seeking appointment to the post of primary teachers against the existing vacancies of 127 posts available with the Autonomous District Council, Chandel. The petitioners have also filed W.P.(C) No.639 of 2011 before the Gauhati High Court, wherein they have filed M.C.No.311 of 2015. By the order dated 14.12.2015, the Court directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 3.2.2011 followed by a reminder representation dated 10.8.2015 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 5. Pursuant to the order passed in M.C.No.311 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No.639 of 2011, the Under Secretary (TA & Hills) passed an order on 12.2.2016 against the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.249 of 2016, wherein the Court ordered that the pendency of the writ petition shall not preclude the respondents from considering the case of the petitioners for appointment as primary teachers. However, to the utter shock, letter dated 22.11.2016 was issued approving 45 candidates for appointment as primary teachers from the remaining 60 approved wait list candidates from the letter dated 20.4.2010 by superseding the merit list against the petitioners who are higher in order of merit as per 74 approved wait listed candidates. Challenging the action of the respondent authorities and to direct them to appoint the petitioners as primary teachers, they have filed the present writ petition. 6. The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the appointments of primary teachers under ADC, Chandel in the year 2016 were not followed the seniority list on the basis of merit and, therefore, the Department was of the view that the appointment of primary teachers in the year 2016 under the ADC, Chandel should have been made strictly as per the merit list of the approved wait list for appointment of primary teachers DPC held on 2009-2010. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that out of 74 approved wait listed candidates, 14 were given appointment as primary teachers on 22.4.2010 and 24.4.2010 respectively and, as such, there are 533 newly appointed primary school teachers are enjoying the Government service. He would submit that 60 wait listed candidates, including petitioners have been kept waiting of their appointment, though there are 843 sanctioned posts out of which 127 posts of primary teachers are lying vacant in the ADC, Chandel against non-planned education expenditure vide Finance Department's letter dated 16.12.2010. 8. The learned senior counsel further submitted that out of 14 candidates from the wait list who were given appointment, only 4 were appointed against the plan education expenditure, while the remaining 10 were appointed against the non-planning expenditure. After the appointment of the 10 wait listed candidates against the non-planning expenditure, 127 posts of primary teachers are still lying vacant and, therefore, there is no reason in not giving appointment to the petitioners. 9. The learned senior counsel submitted that aggrieved by the act of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioners, they have submitted a representation on 3.2.2011. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.639 of 2011 praying inter alia for direction directing the respondents to appoint them from the approved wait list as primary teachers under ADC, Chandel as has been done in similarly situated wait listed candidates against the available vacancy of primary teachers. In the said writ petition, the petitioners have also filed miscellaneous case praying for consideration and disposal of the representation dated 3.2.2011 and this Court by the order dated 14.12.2015 directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation within two months. However, an order has been passed on 12.2.2016, rejecting the claim made in the said representation on the ground that the validity period for wait list panel had lapsed. 10. According to the learned senior counsel, the order dated 12.2.2016 was passed without considering the letter of the Chief Executive Officer, ADC, Chandel recommending the petitioners for consideration and validity of their case for appointment as primary teachers against the existing 127 vacant posts in the ADC, Chandel during the operational period of the wait list panel. 11. 10. According to the learned senior counsel, the order dated 12.2.2016 was passed without considering the letter of the Chief Executive Officer, ADC, Chandel recommending the petitioners for consideration and validity of their case for appointment as primary teachers against the existing 127 vacant posts in the ADC, Chandel during the operational period of the wait list panel. 11. The learned senior counsel then submitted that aggrieved by the order dated 12.2.2016, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.307 of 2016. The petitioners also filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.249 of 2016 and this Court by the order dated 15.4.2016 observed that the pendency of the writ petition shall not preclude the respondents from considering the case of the petitioners for appointment as primary teachers. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioners, the Under Secretary (TA & Hills) issued a letter dated 22.1.2016 according approval to 45 candidates for appointment as primary teachers from the remaining 60 approved wait listed candidates stated in the letter dated 20.4.2010, thereby superseding the merit list against the petitioners who are higher in order of merit as per the list of 74 approved wait listed candidates. 12. The learned senior counsel urged that there are enough vacancies for appointment of primary teachers under ADC, Chandel at the relevant point of time and also at present. The respondent State has no power to approve or cancel the whole or part or to reshuffle the order of merit submitted by the DPC. The wait list has been approved in order of merit and acted upon by the concerned Government Department vide letter dated 20.4.2010 by conveying approval of the 14 wait listed candidates from Serial No.1 to 14 in order of merit. Arguing so, the learned senior counsel prays for allowing of the writ petition and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners are primary teachers under the ADC, Chandel without any further delay. 13. Per contra, Mrs. CH. Sundari, learned Government Advocate submitted that the appointment of primary teachers in the year 2016 under ADC, Chandel has been made as per the merit list of the approved wait list and that the appointment has not followed the seniority list on the basis of merit. Thus, the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be granted, as there is no basis for seeking such relief. 14. Thus, the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be granted, as there is no basis for seeking such relief. 14. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 15. Before going to consider the claim of the petitioners, it is to be mentioned that the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the first respondent to the writ petition is vague and the first respondent has not specifically denied or controverted the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. 16. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to state the earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the act of omission and pick and choose method adopted by the respondents, the petitioners and other persons have submitted a representation dated 3.2.2011. Since the said representation was not considered by the respondents, the petitioners and others filed W.P.(C) No.639 of 2011 before Gauhati High Court praying inter alia for a direction directing the respondents to appoint them from the approved wait list as primary school teachers under ADC, Chandel as similarly situated wait listed candidates were given appointment from the wait list against the available vacancy of primary teachers under ADC, Chandel. Thereafter, the said writ petition was transferred to the Manipur High Court. Pending writ petition, the petitioners filed M.C.No.311 of 2015 praying to consider the representation dated 3.2.2011. By the order dated 14.12.2015, this Court allowed the said miscellaneous petition and the operative portion of the order reads thus: 'Accordingly, the present miscellaneous application is allowed with the direction that the respondents shall consider the representation dated 03.02.2011 followed by reminder representation dated 10.08.2015 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and issue appropriate order thereof.' 17. Pursuant to the direction dated 14.12.2015, the Under Secretary (TA & Hills) passed an order dated 12.2.2016 rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, W.P.(C) No.307 of 2016 came to be filed. A writ petition being W.P.(C) No.249 of 2016 was also filed, wherein this Court on 15.4.2016 passed the following order: 'Heard Shri M.Hemchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Issue notice to the respondents returnable 18/5/2016 (Wednesday). Shri N.Ibotombi, learned Addl. Aggrieved by the said order, W.P.(C) No.307 of 2016 came to be filed. A writ petition being W.P.(C) No.249 of 2016 was also filed, wherein this Court on 15.4.2016 passed the following order: 'Heard Shri M.Hemchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Issue notice to the respondents returnable 18/5/2016 (Wednesday). Shri N.Ibotombi, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Shri A.Rommel, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 and hence, no formal notice is called for in respect of Respondent No.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners shall take appropriate steps for serving notice upon Respondent Nos.2 to 33 by registered post with A.D. The pendency of the writ petition shall not preclude the respondents from considering the case of the petitioners for appointment as primary teachers.' 18. On a perusal of the wait list dated 20.04.2010, the names of petitioners appear at Serial Nos.17, 34 and 70 and the wait list has been acted upon and appointments were given by operating it from Serial No.1 to 14, which was evident from the appointment orders produced by the petitioners along with the writ petition. However, while issuing the letter dated 22.11.2016, thereby approving 45 candidates for appointment as primary teachers from the remaining 60 approved wait list candidates from the list dated 20.4.2010, the names of the petitioners have been omitted. There is no special reason stated in the said letter dated 22.11.2016 that how they approved the 45 candidates by omitting the petitioners. Admittedly and as stated supra, the petitioners' serial numbers are 17, 34 and 70. While so, by superseding the merit list, the letter dated 22.11.2016 came to be issued. In fact, the candidates juniors to the petitioners were approved for appointment in the letter dated 22.11.2016. When the respondents earlier followed the wait list serial wise, what prevented them from following the same serial system when the subsequent appointments made. This, in fact, blatant discrimination against the equal and against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 19. The contest made by the first respondent in the instant writ petition is that the appointment of primary teachers under ADC, Chandel in the year 2016 has not followed the seniority list on basis of merit and the appointments of primary teachers in the year 2016 under the ADC, Chandel have been made strictly as per the merit list of the approved wait list. 20. 20. It is not in dispute that there are enough vacancies for appointment of primary teachers under the ADC, Chandel at the relevant point of time and also at present. Further, as rightly argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the respondent State has no power to approve or cancel the whole or part or to reshuffle the order of merit submitted by the DPC. Its power to cancel is limited to cases were the selection has been vitiated by consideration of corruption, favoritism or nepotism. In fact, the wait list has been approved in order of merit and acted upon by the Department on 24.10.2016. 21. As stated supra, by operating the wait list, an approval of 14 wait listed candidates from Serial No.1 to 14 in order of merit has been given and, accordingly, they were given appointment against the plan education expenditure while the remaining 10 were appointed against the non-planning expenditure and 127 posts of primary teachers lying vacant at the relevant point of time. The said position of appointment and vacant position has not been disputed by the respondents specifically. 22. Since the approved wait list has been acted upon and by implication of such act the said list should by all account be rechristened as select list considering the fact that there are 127 and more existing vacancies of the primary teachers in the ADC, Chandel. It is also apparent from the letter dated 22.11.2016, by adopting pick and choose method in the name of the administrative policy by superseding the order of merit list, the Commissioner (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur issued the said letter dated 22.11.2016 by omitting the names of the petitioners. 23. When there were enough vacancies for appointment of primary teachers under ADC, Chandel at the relevant point of time as also at present, nothing prevented the respondent authorities to give appointment to the wait listed candidates then and there, as DPC has approved 74 wait listed candidates in the order of merit and the respondents have also acted pursuant to the DPC list by initially appointing Serial No.1 to 14. 24. It is settled law that a waiting list would commence to operate, when offers of appointment have been issued to those emerging on the top of the merit list. 24. It is settled law that 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 room to the appointing authority to fill up vacancies which arise during the subsistence of the waiting lit. 25. In Union Terrotory of Chadigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and others, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while a candidate who finds a place in the select list may have no vested right to be appointed to any post, in the absence of any specific rules entitling him to the same, he may still be aggrieved of his non-appointment if the authority concerned acts arbitrarily or in a malafide manner. 26. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the common order of this Court dated 6.6.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.982 of 2019 etc. batch, wherein in similar situation, this Court direct the respondents therein to appoint to writ petitioners to the post of Forest Guard in their respective category or reservation with effect from the date when vacancies arose in terms of the order dated 15.12.2017 appointing 243 Forest Guards on regular basis. 27. No candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State's decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ court. If any such decision is found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter. 28. As stated supra, in the merit list the names of the petitioners appear at Serial Nos.17, 34 and 70 respectively and the said merit list was also acted upon by giving appointments to Serial Nos.1 to 14. While that being so, the non-consideration of the petitioners in the merit list is totally unacceptable. 28. As stated supra, in the merit list the names of the petitioners appear at Serial Nos.17, 34 and 70 respectively and the said merit list was also acted upon by giving appointments to Serial Nos.1 to 14. While that being so, the non-consideration of the petitioners in the merit list is totally unacceptable. Further, when a challenge to the order dated 12.2.2016 has been made, this Court in W.P.(C) No.249 of 2016 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment as primary teachers. The aforesaid interim order does not preclude the petitioners from considering appointment to the post of primary teachers. However, the Commissioner (TA & Hills), by violating the said direction and also by adopting pick and choose method, approved the 45 candidates by omitting the petitioners whose names appear in the merit list. Such act of the respondent authorities is unacceptable and the petitioners have made out a case for consideration of their candidatures for appointment to the post of primary teachers against the available vacancies under the ADC, Chandel as similarly situated waitlisted candidates by the same DPC have already been appointed vide order dated 22.4.2010, 24.4.2010 and 22.11.2016 respectively. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to appointment as primary teachers against the available vacant posts. 29. In the result, (a) the writ petition is allowed. (b) The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners as primary teachers against the available vacancies under the ADC, Chandel, Manipur. (c) The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (d) No costs.