JUDGMENT 1. The applicants pray for modifcation in the judgment dtd. 04/05/2021 delivered in Writ Petition No. 11843 of 2017 to the extent that these applicants who are in the wait list category, should be considered for appointment as against the entire vacant seats available, instead of the 33 posts on which the appointed candidates had not joined. 2. We have considered the lengthy submissions of the learned advocate for the applicants, who has virtually re-argued the writ petition. The law on entertaining a review petition is well settled in Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650 . 3. The sole contention of the petitioners is that because there are 215 vacancies available, these petitioners should be considered as against the said vacant seats. 4. The learned advocate representing the Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. submits that the submissions set out in the review petition were considered by the learned Division Bench (Coram : S. V. Gangapurwala and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.) vide judgment dtd. 04/05/2021 in paragraph Nos. 12 to 20. He further submits that these petitioners belong to different categories and they could be accommodated only as against those available posts on which candidates from the particular categories were appointed and who did not join duties. It is further submitted that all the 215 posts would not be available since the subsequent events leading to decommissioning of three major units viz. Unit No.2 at Bhusaval, Unit No.3 at Parali and Unit No.5 at Koradi, consequentially compelled the employer to accommodate the permanent employees working in these units as against the now available posts. 5. For the sake of brevity, we deem it appropriate to reproduce paragraph Nos. 12 to 22 set out in the judgment dtd. 04/05/2021 as under : "12. The following admitted scenario throws light regarding post advertised, reserved post, general post, number of candidates on select list and wait list. 13. During course of argument Mr. Gaikwad invited our attention to the additional affdavit sworn on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and submitted that Unit-3 at Parli TPS is decommissioned. It is not enough Unit-5 at Koradi TPS and Unit -2 at Bhusawal TPS are also decommissioned in view of resolution passed by the board. 13. During course of argument Mr. Gaikwad invited our attention to the additional affdavit sworn on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and submitted that Unit-3 at Parli TPS is decommissioned. It is not enough Unit-5 at Koradi TPS and Unit -2 at Bhusawal TPS are also decommissioned in view of resolution passed by the board. The employees who were working in the above said units were required to be accommodated at other generation plants as such it was not possible for the MSPGC Ltd., to fll all the posts advertised. It was a bonafde decision taken by the MSPGC Ltd. The petitioners have no legal right to seek appointment even though certain posts are vacant. 14. It is well settled position of law that selected candidate has no indefeasible right to be appointed. Existence of a vacancies does not give legal right to a candidate in select list to claim appointment and reliance can be placed to that effect in case of The State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha and others (Supra). In case of Jatinder Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (Supra) it is held by the Apex Court that a person selected by the Subordinate Service Selection Board for direct appointment to the post of Assistant SubInspector of Police has no legal right to be appointed on the basis of recommendation made by the said Board. 15. The process of selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipatory vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post which can be in force by mandamus. In case of Madan Lal and others V/s State of J. and K. and others (Supra) it is observed by the Apex Court that the life of selection list get exhausted the moment all vacancies are flled up or after expiry of one year, whichever is earlier that was a case in which the rules stipulated the list of panel for a period of one year. Therefore, the legal position is very much clear that the persons whose names appearing in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed but have a limited right to claim appointment against the post which were advertised and in case of non joining of candidates or such advertised post for vacant because of other circumstances. 16. Therefore, the legal position is very much clear that the persons whose names appearing in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed but have a limited right to claim appointment against the post which were advertised and in case of non joining of candidates or such advertised post for vacant because of other circumstances. 16. In case of Surinder Singh and Other V/s State of Punjab and Another (Supra) it is observed by the Apex Court that the candidates in waiting list have a limited vested right to the appointment to the extent that when the candidates selected against the existence vacancies do not join for some reasons, the wait listed candidates would be entitled for appointment. 17. Having regard to the well settled position of law made clear in above referred citations of the Apex Court, there is no need to refer remaining citations relied upon by both the sides. 18. It is not in dispute that 947 posts of Technician-III were advertised by the MSPGC Ltd. 923 candidates were selected by the MSPGC Ltd. Further it is not in dispute that 708 candidates from the select list have joined their respective posts. 166 candidates out of 947 selected candidates were found ineligible. Some of the selected candidates from the select list had refused to join their post. As such, there are 215 posts lying vacant in view of 947 posts advertised by the MSPGC Ltd. 19. In view of settled legal position even selected candidate has no indefeasible right to get appointment leave aside the candidates who are on wait list. Existence of vacancies does not have legal right to candidate in the select list and that legal position is also made clear by the Apex Court in above referred citation in case of Jatinder Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others. Let us consider what is the diffculty of MSPGC Ltd., to consider the wait list when 215 posts out of advertised post are still lying vacant. The MSPGC Ltd., has putforth a reason that the MSPGC Ltd., has decommissioned its units viz. Unit-3 at Parali, Unit-5 at Koradi and Unit-2 at Bhusawal and they have accommodated the employees who were working on the above said units. In this context we have perused the additional affdavit sworn by Mr. Ajinkay s/o Pandurang Ingule, Manager, HR of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Unit-3 at Parali, Unit-5 at Koradi and Unit-2 at Bhusawal and they have accommodated the employees who were working on the above said units. In this context we have perused the additional affdavit sworn by Mr. Ajinkay s/o Pandurang Ingule, Manager, HR of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. More particularly his affdavit para 2 page 5 throws light on this issue. It is stated by the Manager, HR that during period from 1/4/2016 to 1/4/2017 decommissioning of the working units and/or due to nonavailability of coal and water etc. as many as 217 posts of Technician-III have become surplus. The Company is taking every effort to accommodate the surplus employees by accommodating them at another unit but they have to abolish 88 posts. Meaning thereby MSPGC Ltd., is unable to consider the request made by the petitioners. 20. In the case at hand the advertisement was issued for the post of Technician-III on 08/02/2016 for 947 posts of Technician-III as per the regulations of MSPGC Ltd., and as per the advertisement the select list and wait list would remain in force for one year from the date of publication. As such the waiting list would be in force till 1/10/2017. The petitioners have fled this petition on 15/9/2017 and knocked the doors of this Court and sought directions to consider their prayer for appointment in view of vacancy though they are from wait list. Before expiry of one year of the list the petitioners have approached this Court and availed legal remedy. In this context clause-8 of Advertisement to consider the names from waiting list is important and supports the case of petitioners. It is stated in clause-8 of the advertisement issued by the MSPGC Ltd., that if the candidates from the select list were found disqualifed during the document verifcation process, the waiting list will be implemented. As per the information collected by the petitioners under RTI Act and placed on record 166 candidates from select list were found ineligible and therefore they were disqualifed. Some of the candidates from select list had refused to join the post. There are 215 posts still lying vacant to complete the recruitment of 947 posts of Technician-III. 21. The following are the details of the petitioners on the waiting list and available vacancies from the respective category. 22. Some of the candidates from select list had refused to join the post. There are 215 posts still lying vacant to complete the recruitment of 947 posts of Technician-III. 21. The following are the details of the petitioners on the waiting list and available vacancies from the respective category. 22. On perusing the document produced by MSPGC Ltd., more particularly at page No. 119- B, it would be clear that in all 9 selected candidates issued with the appointment order from a category of Pragat Kushal have not joined their posts of Technician-III. Further it is evident that 24 selected candidates issued with the appointment order from general category have not joined their posts of Technician-III. As such 24 + 9 = 33 selected candidates seem to have not joined their respective posts of Technician-III. Those 33 posts are not flled in by the MSPGC Ltd. There was no impediment for the MSPGC Ltd., to fll up those 33 posts from the waiting list candidates obviously as per the seniority and merit and as per the reservation policy. There may not be any diffculty for the MSPGC Ltd., to make such exercise when 33 candidates duly appointed refused to join their posts as per their own document. 6. It is, thus, obvious that this court, while calculating the available 33 posts on which the candidates did not join, held that these 13 petitioners could be accommodated provided they were eligible to be considered. We are informed that two candidates amongst the petitioners have already been appointed. 7. In view of the above, we do not fnd that any error apparent on the face of the order has been pointed by the petitioners who are wait listed candidates and do not have an indefeasible right in the light of the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs Subhash Chander Marwaha and others (supra), Madan Lal and others vs. State of J. and K. and others (supra), Surinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) and Jatinder Kumar and others vs. State of Pubjab and others (supra). 8. As such, the review application, being devoid of merits, is rejected.