JUDGMENT : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent No.3/the Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board (for short, APSSB’), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment against any of the post that had fallen vacant due to the resignation of the selected candidates (though, categorically does not refer to any of the select list but from the pleadings and the annexures, it appears that the petitioner refers to select list, dated 04.12.2019 issued by the Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Arunachal Pradesh Staff Board vide No.APSSB-64/2019). 2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition insofar it is relevant for adjudication of this case, briefly stated, are, as follows:- I. Pursuant to an Advertisement dated 09.01.2019 issued by the respondent No. 2 under the signature of Under Secretary, APSSB, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, vide File No. APSSB/ADVT-8/2018 and the Addendum, dated 31.07.2019, issued by the Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, APSSB, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh vide File No.APSSB/ADVT-8/2018/136 inviting applications for filling up of, inter alia, 41 posts of UDCs in various Departments of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, a select list dated 04.12.2019 was published by the Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, APSSB, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide Memo No.APSSB-64/2019, whereby, amongst others, as many as 39 candidates were selected for appointment as UDC in various Departments of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Along with 39 selected candidates, one candidate from the Person with Disability (for short, ‘PWD’) category was also selected. Result of 1 (one) post of UDC meant for meritorious sports person was, however, not declared for some reason(s). Along with the aforesaid result, waiting list comprising of 5 (five) candidates was also prepared, wherein, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 of the waiting list. After the aforesaid select list was prepared, the APSSB forwarded the said select list for appointment to various Departments of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and thereafter, the candidates joined the respective Departments as UDC where they have been recommended for such appointment. II. It is the further case of the petitioner that some time in the month of December, 2020, the petitioner had come to know from a reliable source that one of the candidates who had joined pursuant to the aforesaid select list had resigned. II. It is the further case of the petitioner that some time in the month of December, 2020, the petitioner had come to know from a reliable source that one of the candidates who had joined pursuant to the aforesaid select list had resigned. Upon such information received, the petitioner visited the office of the APSSB and on enquiry, it was confirmed that one Shri Takhe Babing had resigned from the post of Store Keeper some time in the month of June/July, 2020 who had earlier joined the TRIHMS. Thereafter, it had also come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the Director of TRIHMS had requested the APSSB to recommend one candidate from the waiting list for filling up the post of Store Keeper that had been vacated on resignation by Shri Takhe Babing. Upon such information received, the petitioner filed an RTI application before the PIO of the APSSB which was received by the P.A. to Joint Secretary on 12.01.2021. The information sought for by the petitioner was, however, denied by the PIO of the APSSB vide letter, dated 25.02.2021 written to the petitioner. III. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the First Appellate authority against the denial of the information sought for by the petitioner as indicated above. In the meanwhile, the PIO of the APSSB furnished the information sought for by the petitioner vide letter dated 05.05.2021 vide No. APSSB-76/2019/1083, whereby, following information was furnished to the petitioner indicating one vacancy each at TRIHMS; Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries; and Directorate of Health Services, respectively, and 2 vacancies at Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (for short, ‘APIC’). Also furnished was a letter dated 02.07.2020 written by the Director, TRIHMS to the Secretary, APSSB vide No. TRIHMS/E-28/2019/3179-80, whereby the APSSB was requested to recommend one candidate from the wait listed candidates for appointment to the post of Store Keeper which had fallen vacant due to the resignation of Shri Takhe Babing. IV. The petitioner filed, yet, another RTI application dated 17.08.2021 before the PIO, APSSB seeking information as to on which date, the appointed candidates had resigned as a result of which the vacancy indicated in the information furnished to him vide the letter dated 05.05.2021 by PIO, APSSB, had occurred. IV. The petitioner filed, yet, another RTI application dated 17.08.2021 before the PIO, APSSB seeking information as to on which date, the appointed candidates had resigned as a result of which the vacancy indicated in the information furnished to him vide the letter dated 05.05.2021 by PIO, APSSB, had occurred. Pursuant to the 2nd RTI application dated 17.08.2021, the petitioner was furnished with an information by the PIO, APSSB, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, dated 15.09.2021, indicating that one candidate who had joined the Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries and Directorate of Health Services had resigned on 11.03.2020 and 01.03.2020, respectively, and 2 (two) candidates who had joined the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) had resigned on 11.03.2020. Along with the letter dated 15.09.2021; 2 (two) other letters, dated 06.03.2020 and 12.03.2020, written by the Director of Health Services, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun and Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, respectively, vide Memo No.MEST-2019/815/1642 and F/No. APIC-03/2010/160 to the Chairman, APSSB, respectively, were furnished to the petitioner. The letter, dated 06.03.2020, is the one written by the Director of Health Services, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, to the Chairman, APSSB requesting to take necessary action to fill up the vacant post of UDC in the Directorate of Health Services consequent upon the resignation of Shri Katum Yomcha. The letter, dated 12.03.2020, is the one written by the Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC, to the Chairman, APSSB, requesting to recommend 2 (two) new names from amongst the candidates of the waiting list of UDC as 2 (two) posts of UDCs have fallen vacant due to the resignation of Ms. Millo Rinya and Ms. Kago Monju. There was, yet, information furnished to the petitioner by the PIO, APSSB, which is an order dated 18.03.2020 issued on 30.04.2020 by the Principal Secretary (Fin.), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar vide No. DA/357/2020/49-52, whereby, it has been indicated that the resignation tendered by Shri Mikim Megu from the post of UDC is accepted w.e.f. 11.03.2020. Kago Monju. There was, yet, information furnished to the petitioner by the PIO, APSSB, which is an order dated 18.03.2020 issued on 30.04.2020 by the Principal Secretary (Fin.), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar vide No. DA/357/2020/49-52, whereby, it has been indicated that the resignation tendered by Shri Mikim Megu from the post of UDC is accepted w.e.f. 11.03.2020. V. By referring to the aforesaid letters, dated 06.03.2020 written by the Director of Health Services, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun to the Chairman, APSSB, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar; the letter dated, 12.03.2020 written by the Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC, Itanagar to the Chairman, APSSB, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar; the letter, dated 02.07.2020 written by the Director (TRIHMS) to the Secretary, APSSB, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, as well as the order dated 18.03.2020 issued on 30.04.2020 by the Principal Secretary (Fin.), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, the petitioner contends that since 4 (four) posts of UDC and 1 (one) post of Store Keeper had fallen vacant due to the resignation tendered by the candidates who had earlier joined during the validity period of the select list/waiting list as contemplated under Rule 16 of the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board Rules, 2018 (hereinafter, referred to the “Rules of 2018”); the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be recommended for appointment to one of the posts mentioned above notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition was filed after expiry of the select list/waiting list, dated 04.12.2019. 3. The APSSB has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, while not denying the information furnished to the petitioner and the various letters received from the Department for forwarding of additional names by the APSSB, it has been contended that though the respondent-APSSB was in receipt of those letters, the response to those letters could not be sent to the respective Departments as a vigilance case being SIC (Vig.) P.S. Case No. 07/2020 was registered on 11.04.2020 under Sections 468/469/471/120B IPC read with Sections 7/8/13 (1) (b) & 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988, relating to the recruitment conducted by the respondent-APSSB pursuant to the Advertisement, dated 09.01.2019 and the Addendum dated 31.07.2019 issued by the respondent-APSSB. The respondent-APSSB further contends that recommendation of the additional names could not be made by the APSSB during the validity period of the select list/waiting list prepared for the reasons stated above and since the select list/waiting list has expired on 03.12.2020, the APSSB cannot further act upon the select list/waiting list dated 04.12.2019, the validity period of which has already expired. The respondent-APSSB, therefore, contends that no relief sought for by the petitioner in the facts of the present case, can now be granted by this Court. 4. I have heard Mr. R. L. Thunghon, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Tapin, learned Standing counsel for the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board (APSSB) representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 8; as well as Mr. R. Saikia, learned Standing counsel for the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) representing respondent No. 7; and Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing counsel for the Director of Health Services representing respondents No. 5 & 6. 5. Mr. Thungon, learned counsel, for the petitioner, by referring to the Rule 16 of the ‘Rules of 2018’ contends that when a selected candidate is not available for appointment within the stipulated period for joining the post or where a candidate joins but resigns or dies within the period of 6 (six) months from the date of his joining, such vacancy is required to be filled up from the waiting list so prepared. He, therefore, submits that since the resignations tendered by Shri Takhe Babing, the Store Keeper from TRIHMS; Shri Katum Yomcha, UDC, from the Directorate of Health Services; Ms. Millo Rinya and Ms. Kago Monju from the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC), Itanagar; and Shri Mikim Megu from the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Itanagar, was within the period of 6 (six) months from the dates of their joining and also the letters, dated 06.03.2020, 12.03.2020 and 02.07.2020, have all been written to the Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board(APSSB), asking for additional names for filling up of the posts of Store Keeper and UDC within the validity period of the waiting list; the petitioner ought to have been recommended by the respondent-APSSB for his appointment as contemplated under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2018. Mr. Mr. Thungon, learned counsel, further, argues that since the respondent-APSSB has failed in its statutory duty to recommend the name of the petitioner from the waiting list prepared along with the select list for filling up of the posts that had fallen vacant due to the resignations of the earlier appointed candidates, as contemplated by the Rule 16 of the Rules of 2018; the respondent-APSSB is liable to be directed for recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment either, as Upper Division Clerk(LDC), or, Store Keeper, in terms of the Rule 16 of the Rules of 2018. 6. Mr. Tapin, learned Standing counsel for the APSSB, on the other hand, by referring to Rule 16 Clause 3 of the Rules of 2018, submits that the select list of each recruitment examination is either, valid for one year only from the date of its publication, or, till the publication of result of the next recruitment examination, whichever, is earlier. In the instant case, the select list had expired on 03.12.2020 and the writ petitioner having approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition on 30.09.2021 which is much after the expiry of the select list/waiting list, dated 04.09.2019, there is, therefore, no legally enforceable right of the petitioner to be appointed to any of the post and a corresponding duty of the respondent-APSSB to act upon the select list/waiting list which has already expired; and, hence, no writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued by this Court directing the respondent-APSSB to recommend the name of the petitioner from the select list/waiting list, the validity period of which has already expired as noted above. In support of the contentions raised, Mr. Tapin, learned Standing counsel, APSSB, has relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are, quoted, as under:- (1) (1996) 9 SCC 309 ; (State of U.P. and Others-vs-Harish Chandra & ors.); (2) (1997) 8 SCC 488 ; (Surinder Singh & ors. -vs-State of Punjab and Another); (3) (2006) 12 SCC 561 ; (State of Bihar & ors. -vs-Amrendra Kumar Mishra); and (4) (2007) 8 SCC 161 . (State of Rajasthan & ors. -vs-Jagdish Chopra); Mr. -vs-State of Punjab and Another); (3) (2006) 12 SCC 561 ; (State of Bihar & ors. -vs-Amrendra Kumar Mishra); and (4) (2007) 8 SCC 161 . (State of Rajasthan & ors. -vs-Jagdish Chopra); Mr. Tapin, learned Standing counsel, further, submits that the letter received from the Director, TRIHMS; Director of Health Services and Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC, Itanagar, seeking additional names from the waiting list could not be responded on account of registration of the Vigilance case by the SIC against the recruitment undertaken by the APSSB referred to hereinabove; and therefore, the respondent-APSSB had a justified reason not to have responded to the various letters received from the authorities named-above and, accordingly, there was neither any malafide exercise of power on the part of the respondent-APSSB, nor, the APSSB deliberately sat over the matter. 7. In reply to the arguments made by Mr. Tapin, learned Standing counsel for the APSSB; Mr. Thungon, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that when the denial of the appointment to a selected candidate or a candidate placed under waiting list is not on the fault of the candidate and the same is due to the fault of the authority; relief to such a candidate cannot be denied even if the writ petition is filed by the petitioner after the select list/waiting list has expired. In support of his contention, Mr. Thungon, learned counsel, has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 (6) SCC 49 (Purushottam-vs-Chairman, M.S.E.B and Another). 8. Though the respondent No. 7 has not filed any counter affidavit but Mr. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC)/respondent No. 7, herein, has not denied the letter, dated 12.03.2020, written by the Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC, vide No.APIC-03/Estt./2010/160, which letter was written to the Chairman, APSSB, requesting for recommending 2 (two) new names from the waiting list for filling up of the 2 (two) vacant posts of UDC which have fallen vacant due to the resignations of Ms. Millo Rinya and Ms. Kago Monju. Mr. Saikia, learned Standing counsel, has, further submitted that no fresh requisition for filling up those 2 (two) posts of UDC have been sent to the APSSB till date and the said two posts of UDCs are still lying vacant. 9. Millo Rinya and Ms. Kago Monju. Mr. Saikia, learned Standing counsel, has, further submitted that no fresh requisition for filling up those 2 (two) posts of UDC have been sent to the APSSB till date and the said two posts of UDCs are still lying vacant. 9. The respondent No. 8 i.e. the Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries, Itanagar, in the counter affidavit filed, has also admitted the fact that one Shri Mikim Megu, UDC, had submitted his resignation letter which was duly accepted by the office w.e.f. 11.03.2020 vide Order No. DA/I/357/2020/49-52,dated 18.03.2020. 10. Though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.6, Mr. Tagum, learned Standing counsel for the Health Department, on instruction, submits that a post of Store Keeper which had fallen vacant on account of resignation by one Shri Takhe Babing who had joined the Department pursuant to the select list prepared by the APSSB, dated 04.12.2019, for which the additional name was sought for by the Director, TRIHMS, vide letter, dated 02.07.2020 and a post of UDC on account of resignation of Shri Katum Yomcha vide the letter of Director of Health Services dated 06.03.2020; are still lying vacant and no fresh requisition has been sent for filling up the said posts. 11. Rival submissions advanced at the Bar have received due consideration of this Court and the materials made available on record as well as the rival pleadings made by the contesting parties have duly been perused. 12. On consideration of the rival pleadings and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, it is not in dispute that pursuant to the Advertisement dated 09.01.2019 vide No. APSSB/ADVT-8/2018 and the Addendum dated 31.07.2019 vide File No.APSSB/ADVT-8/2018/136 issued by the respondent-APSSB, inviting applications for filling up of various posts of Group-C including the post of Store Keeper and UDC in various Departments of the Government; a select list dated 04.12.2019 vide No. APSSB-64/2019 was prepared by the respondent-APSSB, wherein, for appointment of 41 vacant posts of UDC, amongst others, 39 candidates have been selected for appointment in the post of UDC in different Departments of the Government. One candidate under PWD Quota has also been selected for appointment. One candidate under PWD Quota has also been selected for appointment. The result in respect of one post of UDC earmarked for meritorious Sports quota, however, was not declared, the decision in respect of which was indicated that it shall be intimated in due course of time. A waiting list of 5 (five) candidates was also prepared vide the aforesaid select list, dated 04.12.2019, for appointment to the post of UDC, in the event, the selected candidates does not accept the offer, or, did not join and/or resigned from the post after joining, in the mean while. After the result dated 04.12.2019 was declared, as above, the selected candidates were recommended for appointment by the respondent-APSSB to the various Departments of the Government in terms of the options given by the candidates by a notice dated 20.12.2019 vide No. APSSB-64/2019 issued by the Secretary-cum-CoE, APSSB. It is also not in dispute that letter dated 02.07.2020 was written by the Director (TRIHMS), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun to the Secretary, APSSB, vide Memo No.TRIHMS/E-28/2019/3179-80 requesting the respondent-APSSB to consider and recommend one candidate from the wait listed candidates for appointment to the post of Store Keeper which had fallen vacant due to the resignation of Shri Takhe Babing. What is also not in dispute are the letter dated 06.03.2020 written by the Director of Health Services, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun to the Chairman, APSSB, vide Memo No. MEST-2019/815/1642 requesting to send another name for filling up the vacant post of UDC in the Directorate of Health Services consequent upon the resignation tendered by Shri Katum Yomcha and the letter dated 12.03.2020 written by the Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC, Itanagar to the Chairman, APSSB vide F/No. APIC-03/Estt./2010/160 requesting for recommending 2 (two) names for appointment in the post of UDC in the office of APIC, Itanagar, which had fallen vacant on account of resignation of Ms. Millo Rinya and Ms. Kago Monju. Also, what is not in dispute is the order dated 18.03.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary (Fin.), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar vide Memo No. DA/I/357/2020/49-52 which is an order accepting the resignation of Shri Mikim Megu, UDC, w.e.f. 11.03.2020. Millo Rinya and Ms. Kago Monju. Also, what is not in dispute is the order dated 18.03.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary (Fin.), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar vide Memo No. DA/I/357/2020/49-52 which is an order accepting the resignation of Shri Mikim Megu, UDC, w.e.f. 11.03.2020. From the above, it appears that one post of Store Keeper which is equivalent to the post of UDC and 4 (four) posts of UDCs have fallen vacant on resignation of the earlier incumbents as indicated above, within a period of 3 (three) to 9 (nine) months from the date of select/waiting list prepared by the respondent-APSSB. Despite the request made by the different authorities as indicated in the aforesaid letters written to the respondent-APSSB, the respondent-APSSB did not send any name for appointment of either Store Keeper or UDC from the waiting list prepared along with the select list dated 04.12.2019. Reason given by the respondent-APSSB in the counter affidavit filed for not responding to the various requests made by the different Departments of the Government for sending of additional name(s) for appointment of Store Keeper or UDCs as indicated above, has been stated to be because of the registration of a vigilance case being SIC (Vig.) Case No.07/2020 under Sections 468/469/471/120B of the IPC read with Section 7/8/13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, 1988, on 11.04.2020 in connection with the recruitment undertaken by the respondent-APSSB pursuant to Advertisement dated 09.01.2019 vide File No.APSSB/ADVT-8/2018 and the Addendum dated 31.07.2019 vide File No. APSSB/ADVT-8/2018/136. Despite the registration of the Vigilance case as indicated above, there is, however, no dispute that select/waiting list dated 04.12.2019 and the recommendation made pursuant thereto, by the respondent-APSSB dated 20.12.2019, have not been altered and the select list and the recommendation made thereto remains valid, consequent upon which, the selected candidates had joined the respective Departments and some of them resigned as indicated hereinabove. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 30.09.2021. Admittedly, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for his appointment as UDC after expiry of one year from the date the select list was published. 13. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 30.09.2021. Admittedly, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for his appointment as UDC after expiry of one year from the date the select list was published. 13. The issue, which, therefore, calls for determination by this Court is whether a direction can be issued in the instant case, to the respondent-APSSB to recommend the name of the petitioner, herein, for appointment in terms of the select/waiting list dated 04.12.2019 after the expiry of the select/waiting list, the validity of which was for a period of one year. 14. The validity period of the select/waiting list, ordinarily is for a period of one year from the date of publication of the select/waiting list unless the Recruitment Rules provides otherwise. This proposition of law has been laid down and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions relied on by the learned Standing counsel for the APSSB in the cases cited above, wherein, it has been held that the validity of a select/waiting list remains valid for a period of one year only or as provided under the recruitment rule. Once the validity of the select/waiting list expires, the said list cannot be acted upon further, for making any appointment and so also, this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to make appointment from the select/waiting list which has expired inasmuch as, after the expiry of validity period of select/waiting list; no right subsists on the part of the petitioner for being appointed pursuant to the select/waiting list whose validity period has already expired. The above proposition of law was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harish Chandra & Others (Supra), in the context of Rule 26 of the U.P. Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985, which provided that select list will hold for a period of one year from the date of selection and the writ petition was filed after the expiry of one year of the select list. The case of Surinder Singh and Others (Supra) was a case where Advertisement was made for 2461 vacancies whereas appointment was made for 7737 candidates posts in which context, it was held that the candidates in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except to the limited extent that when a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does not join for some reason and the waiting list is still operative. In the case of Amrendra Kumar Mishra (Supra), the selection for appointment of 225 posts of Livestock Assistants was held in terms of the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board, the select list of which, was prepared on 21.12.1992 but the writ petition came to be filed only in the year, 2001. It was in that context, it was held that select list being valid only for a year, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The case of Jagdish Chopra (Supra) is the one where the State of Rajasthan had the provision for employing a Teacher on yearly basis. Vacancies for each year are separately determined in each year under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, which, rule, however, did not provide for the period for which merit list was to remain valid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, held that the merit list prepared will remain valid for a period of one year notwithstanding any such prescription under the Service Rules. 15. On examination of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent-APSSB, it appears that insofar as the validity of the select/waiting list was concerned, it was either provided to remain valid for a period of one year under the Recruitment Rules or there existed no statutory rules. The proposition of law laid down in both the context is that the select/waiting list remained valid for a period of one year and unless the writ petition is filed during the currency of the validity of the select/waiting list, the select/waiting list cannot be acted upon and therefore, no writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued by this Court directing to appoint from the select/waiting list whose validity period had expired. 16. 16. In the instant case, the recruitment has been conducted by the respondent-APSSB in terms of the Arunachal Pradesh Staffs Selection Board Act, 2018 (for short the ‘Act of 2018’) and the rules framed thereunder called the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board Rules, 2018 (for short, ‘Rules of 2018’). The Act of 2018 was enacted by the Legislature to provide for constitution of Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board (APSSB) for the purpose of conducting examinations and selection of candidates for appointments to the subordinate services/Group-C posts in the Government Departments, organizations and autonomous bodies established/constituted by the State Government and Semi-Government Organizations etc. and also to provide the procedure to be followed by the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board (APSSB), its functions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The respondent-APSSB has been constituted under this Act. Section 12 of the Act of 2018, provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being, in force, the recruitment to the subordinate services/posts shall be made on the basis of the recommendations of the Board. To give effect to the provisions of the Act of 2018, the Rules of 2018 has been framed. Rule 16 of the Rules of 2018, which is of relevance for adjudication of this case, reads, as under:- “16. Select list and validity: (1) The Board shall prepare a select list of such numbers of successful candidates in order of merit on the basis of the total aggregate marks obtained in the Recruitment Examination, which shall be equal to the number of vacancies for which requisitions have been made; (2) The select list shall be published [official website of the Board/notice Board and two local dailies] in the form of notification under intimation to the appropriate authority. The select list of the candidate forwarded against the requisition to the appointing authority shall be as per the merit obtained by the candidate in the recruitment examination and the option exercised by the candidate in their application in the context of combined competitive examination. The Board shall allot the post and the department to the candidate(s) selected with due consideration of merit and option. The Board shall allot the post and the department to the candidate(s) selected with due consideration of merit and option. The allotment is within the power of the Board and cannot be complained against the allotment; (3) The select list of each recruitment examination shall be valid for one year from the date of its publication or till the publication of result of the next recruitment examination whichever is earlier; (4) A reserved list or wait list shall be prepared which would contain names of candidates equal to 10% of the total vacancy or 2 names of candidates whichever is higher in order of merit, starting from the first candidate after the last name of the select list. In Case, candidate selected do not become available for appointment, within the stipulated time allowed for joining the post or where a candidate joint but resigns or dies within the period of 6 (six) months from date of his joining, such vacancy would be filled up from wait list.” 17. The select list prepared pursuant to a recruitment conducted by the respondent-APSSB is prepared under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2018. Sub-Rule 3 of the Rule 16 provides that the select list of each recruitment examination shall be valid for one year from the date of its publication or till the publication of result of the next recruitment examination, whichever, is earlier. Sub Rule 4 of the Rule 16 provides that a reserved list or wait list shall be prepared which would contain names of candidates equal to 10% of the total vacancy or 2 names of candidates whichever is higher, in order of merit, starting from the first candidate after the last name of the select list. In case, the candidate selected, do not become available for appointment within the stipulated time allowed for joining the post or where a candidate joins but resigns or dies within the period of 6 (six) months from date of his joining; such vacancy would be filled up from the wait list. 18. Rule 16 (4) of the Rules of 2018, is an additional and distinct feature, in the instant case, which was not to be found in any of the recruitment conducted by the authorities concerned in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in 4 (four) of the cases relied on by the learned Standing counsel for the APSSB, discussed hereinabove. The waiting list of 5 (five) candidates of which the petitioner is one amongst them, appears to have been prepared in compliance of Clause 4 of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2018 which provides that a waiting list shall be prepared which would contain the names of the candidates equal to 10% of the total vacancy or 2 (two) names of candidates whichever is higher in order of merit. As the vacancy advertised, in the instant case, was for filling up of 41 posts of UDC, a waiting list comprising of the percentage (%) of the candidates as provided under Clause 4 of the Rule 16 was prepared. The further mandate of Clause 4 of Rule 16 is that in case, the candidate selected do not become available for appointment within the stipulated time allowed for joining in the post or where a candidate joins but resigns or dies within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of his joining, such vacancy would be filled up from the waiting list prepared in the manner indicated above. It was in compliance of the mandate of Clause 4 of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2018 that the Director, TRIHMS, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, by his letter dated 02.07.2020; Director of Health Services, Government of Arunachal Pradesh by his letter dated 06.03.2020; and the Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC, Itanagar, by his letter dated 12.03.2020 appears to have written a letter to the respondent-APSSB asking the respondent-APSSB to recommend the additional name for appointment from the wait listed candidates because of the resignation of the incumbents indicated in the respective letters, which, however, was not responded to by the respondent-APSSB for the reason explained in the counter affidavit that the respondent-APSSB did not respond to those letters because of the registration of a vigilance case in connection with the recruitment conducted by the respondent-APSSB, as discussed hereinabove. The respondent-APSSB may have had the reasons, as indicated in the counter affidavit for not responding to various letters from the various authorities for recommending additional names for appointment; such non-response by the APSSB, however, is in clear violation of the legislative mandate under Rule 16 (4) of the Rules of 2018, inasmuch as, notwithstanding the registration of a vigilance case, the select list dated 04.12.2019 has not been cancelled/altered or modified and the same remained valid. In the circumstances aforesaid, had this writ petition been filed by the petitioner before the expiry of period of one year of the select list published, there might have been no difficulty in issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondent-APSSB to recommend the name of the petitioner and to appoint thereafter, as mandated under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2018. At the same time, to expect the petitioner or for that matter, any candidate(s) who have been kept in the waiting list to find out as to whether any of the selected candidates had either not joined the service or had resigned after joining the service within a period of 6 (six) months would involve making enquiries by such candidate(s) in each of the Departments of the Government, which, perhaps, may not be an easy task for the candidates to undertake such exercise. Rule 16 Clause 4 of the Rules of 2018, also does not indicate, in what manner, the non-joining of the selected candidates; resignation of the candidates who have joined, or, the candidates who have died after joining the service within a period of 6 (six) months, is to be brought to the notice of the wait listed candidates. It, therefore, follows that the manner in which the wait listed candidates are to be recommended and appointed on occurrences of the contingencies mentioned in Rule 16 (4) of the Rules of 2018, will have to be done between the respondent-APSSB and the respective Departments concerned of the Government, by means of inter Department(s) communication(s), which, in the instant case, appears to have been so done by the Department concerned to which the respondent-APSSB, however, did not respond, though various letters were received by the APSSB seeking for recommendation of the additional names from the wait listed candidates which ultimately allowed the select list to expire. The manner in which the appointment of the petitioner has not been made as per the mandate of Rule 16 (4) of the Rules of 2018, though the respondent-APSSB may not have acted mala fide, the denial of appointment of the petitioner in the manner indicated above, can be wholly attributed to the respondent-APSSB alone. The manner in which the appointment of the petitioner has not been made as per the mandate of Rule 16 (4) of the Rules of 2018, though the respondent-APSSB may not have acted mala fide, the denial of appointment of the petitioner in the manner indicated above, can be wholly attributed to the respondent-APSSB alone. The petitioner, therefore, was not at fault in any manner in not approaching this Court during the currency of the validity period of the select list as he could not have ready access to the information regarding non-joining of the selected candidates or resignation of the candidates who had joined within a period of 6 (six) months. If no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for approaching this Court after the expiry of the validity period of select list, which in the instant case, has been for about 9 (nine) months despite the legislative mandate under Rule 16 (4) to appoint from the wait listed candidates on the contingencies specified in Rule 16 (4) of the Rules of 2018; it would not be justified to deny the petitioner, the relief prayed for in this writ petition, if the same can be granted without affecting the rights of the third party, despite the writ petition having been filed after 9 (nine) months from the expiry of the validity period of the select list. In reaching the above conclusion, I am fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Purushottam-vs-Chairman, M.S.E.B. and Another; reported in (1999) 6 SCC 49 , wherein, in Paragraph 4, it has been held as under:- “4. In view of the rival submission the question that arises for consideration is whether a duly-selected person for being appointed and illegally kept out of employment on account of untenable decision on the part of the employer can be denied the said appointment on the ground that the panel has expired in the meantime. We find sufficient force in the contention of Mr. Deshpande appearing for the appellant in as much as there is no dispute that the appellant was duly selected and was entitled to be appointed to the post but for the illegal decision of the screening committee which decision in the meantime has been reversed by the High Court and that decision of the High Court has reached its finality. Deshpande appearing for the appellant in as much as there is no dispute that the appellant was duly selected and was entitled to be appointed to the post but for the illegal decision of the screening committee which decision in the meantime has been reversed by the High Court and that decision of the High Court has reached its finality. The right of the appellant to be appointed against the post to which he has been selected cannot be taken away on the pretext that the said panel has in the meantime expired and the post has already been filled up by somebody else. Usurpation of the post by somebody else is not on account of any defect on the part of the appellant, but on the erroneous decision of the employer himself. In that view of the matter, the appellant’s right to be appointed to the post has been illegally taken away by the employer. We, therefore, set said the impugned order and judgment of the High Court and direct the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to appoint the appellant to the post for which he was duly selected within two months from today. We make it clear that appointment would be prospective in nature”. 19. Insofar as the right of the candidates in the select/waiting list vis-à-vis the duty of the State/employer to fill up any of the vacancies, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash-vs-Union of India; reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 has held in paragraph No. 7 as follows:- “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification 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. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that that State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that that State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhas Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab”. 20. In the instant case, the State/employer has been all along ready and willing to fill up the vacant posts that had been advertised and the select/waiting list prepared pursuant thereto by the respondent-APSSB. Despite the State/employer being ready and willing to fill up the vacancies advertised, it was because of the non-recommendation of the additional names from the wait listed candidates by the respondent-APSSB that the petitioner has been denied the appointment despite the right to such an appointment having been granted to the wait listed candidates on the circumstances and contingencies specified under Rule 16 clause 4 of the Rules of 2018 and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Shankarsan Dash (Supra) that if the relevant recruitment rules so indicated, the State/employer would be under a legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. In the instant case, it is not even the case that the State/employer was not ready and willing to fill up the vacancies that was put to advertisement. 21. In the instant case, it is not even the case that the State/employer was not ready and willing to fill up the vacancies that was put to advertisement. 21. For the reasons and discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the petitioner in the instant case, would be entitled for a direction to the respondent-APSSB to recommend his name as sought for by the State/employer vide the aforesaid letters referred to hereinabove, notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition has been filed after the expiry of select/waiting list dated 04.12.2019 inasmuch as, he had a right to be appointed as mandated under Rule 16 (4) of the Rules of 2018 for which necessary correspondence was also made by the State/employer which, however, was not promptly responded to by the respondent-APSSB resulting in expiry of the select list/waiting list prepared even before it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that such correspondence had been made between the Departments and the APSSB through the RTI application by him. 22. Having held that the petitioner is entitled to be recommended for appointment in terms of the select/waiting list dated 04.12.2019, it is further noticed from the select/waiting list that along with the petitioner, there are 4 (four) other candidates who have been placed in the waiting list which are as under: Waiting List Rank Roll No. 40 1008882 41 1000620 42 1004678 43 1005777 44 1010008 23. The petitioner is stated to be in the Rank No. 40 bearing Roll No. 1008882. A waiting list of 5 (five) candidates have been prepared by maintaining the ratio indicated under Rule 16 clause 4 of the Rules of 2018 which have already been discussed hereinabove. If the petitioner is held to be entitled for appointment in terms of the select/waiting list dated 04.12.2019, the other candidates whose names also finds place in the same waiting list in terms of the mandate of Rule 16 (4) of the Rules of 2018, all such candidates would equally be entitled for appointment if there exist vacant posts for which the recruitment was conducted by the respondent-APSSB resulting in publication of the select/waiting list dated 04.12.2019. 24. 24. In the instant case, as has been discussed hereinabove, the Director (TRIHMS) vide his letter dated 02.07.2020 written to the Secretary, APSSB, has sought for 1 (one) additional name for appointment to the post of Store Keeper on account of resignation tendered by Shri Takhe Babing. Likewise, Director of Health Services, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, vide his letter dated 06.03.2020 and Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC, Itanagar vide his letter dated 12.03.2020 written to the Chairman, APSSB, have sought for 1 (one) additional name for the Director of Health Services and 2 (two) additional names for the APIC respectively, for filling up of the vacant post of UDCs on account of resignation tendered by one Shri Katum Yomcha in the Department of Health Services and Ms. Millo Rinya and Ms. Kago Monju in the office of the APIC. The order dated 18.03.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary (Fin.), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, also indicates that one Shri Mikim Megu had resigned from the post of UDC whose resignation was accepted w.e.f. 11.03.2020. Thus, 1 (one) vacant post of Store Keeper and 4 (four) posts of UDCs in the TRIHMS; the Department of Health Services; the APIC; and the Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries; respectively, altogether 5 (five) in numbers are still lying vacant. The waiting list prepared is also of 5 (five) candidates who have been indicated by their respective Roll Numbers as quoted hereinabove. Accordingly, it has borne out from the record that all the 5 (five) wait listed candidates can be appointed by the Departments on being recommended by the APSSB in terms of Rule 16 Clause 4 of the Rules of 2018. 25. Accordingly, I, hereby, direct the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board(APSSB) , more particularly, the respondents No. 2 & 3, to recommend the names of all the 5 (five) wait listed candidates whose Roll Nos. 25. Accordingly, I, hereby, direct the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board(APSSB) , more particularly, the respondents No. 2 & 3, to recommend the names of all the 5 (five) wait listed candidates whose Roll Nos. have been indicated hereinabove, though 4 (four) of them have not approached this Court for recommendation of their names, as mandated under Rule 16 clause 4 of the Rules of 2018, in response to the letter dated 02.07.2020 written by the Director(TRIHMS) to the Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC, vide Memo No. TRIHMS/E-28/2019/3179-80; letter dated 06.03.2020 written by the Director of Health Services to the Chairman, APSSB, vide Memo No. MEST-2019/815/1642; letter dated 12.03.2020 written by the Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC to the Chairman, APSSB, vide F/No. APIC-03/Estt./2010/160; as well as the order, dated 18.03.2020 written by the Principal Secretary(Fin.), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo No. DA/I/357/2020/49-52 indicating a vacant post of UDC in the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on account of resignation given by one Shri Mikim Megu; by taking into account, the preference given by the candidates in the waiting list, as expeditiously as possible but, in any case, not later than 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon such recommendation made by the respondent-Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board(APSSB); the TRIHMS; Directorate of Health Services; Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC); and the Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries; shall issue order(s) of appointment to all the 5 (five) wait listed candidates in terms of select/waiting list, dated 04.12.2019, within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of such recommendation from the APSSB, subject to acceptance of the offer of appointment by the candidates. 26. The writ petition stands allowed and accordingly disposed of in terms above.