JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has challenged Advertisement Notice bearing No.04 of 2013 dated 28th June, 2013, issued by respondent No.2, where-under, inter alia, applications have been invited for filling up of 13 posts of Medical Record Technicians. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that vide Advertisement Notice No.02 of 2011 dated 10th October, 2011, respondent No.2 invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up 13 posts of Medical Record Technicians, which included 07 posts in the open merit category. The petitioner being an in-service candidate and eligible in all respects applied for the said post. During the selection process, no shortlisting of the candidates was undertaken by the official respondents because the number of candidates who had applied was not very large. The official respondents issued final selection list vide Government Order No.123-SKIMS of 2012 dated 11th December, 2012, whereby 04 candidates were selected, though the number of vacancies advertised was 13 which included 07 vacancies in the open merit category. 3. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he filed representation against his non-inclusion in the selection list despite availability of the posts before respondent No.2 but the said representation was not considered. It has been submitted that out of in-service candidates, only respondents No.5 to 7 were selected and respondent No.8, who is not an in-service candidate, has also been selected in the open merit category. It has been further averred that out of in-service candidates, only 04 candidates were eligible in the open merit category but the official respondents appointed only respondents No.5 to 7 leaving out the petitioner who was the fourth eligible in-service candidate in the open merit category. It is submitted that during the pendency of the representation, respondent No.2 issued the impugned Advertisement Notice inviting applications for filling up of 13 posts of Medical Record Technician, which means that these posts are still available for selection. 4. On the basis of aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has contended that the official respondents have acted in complete disregard of the norms/rules governing the field. It has been submitted that the official respondents ought to have considered the candidature of the petitioner as he was eligible from amongst the in-service candidates. 4. On the basis of aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has contended that the official respondents have acted in complete disregard of the norms/rules governing the field. It has been submitted that the official respondents ought to have considered the candidature of the petitioner as he was eligible from amongst the in-service candidates. It has been further contended that by leaving out the petitioner from the list of selected candidates, the official respondents have acted in disregard of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been further contended that the impugned Advertisement Notice, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, is a mala fide exercise of power on the part of official respondents. It has been prayed that besides quashing the impugned Advertisement Notice to the extent of filling up of posts of Medical Record Technician, the official respondents be directed to issue a formal order of appointment in favour of the petitioner, as has been done in the case of respondents No.5 to 8. 5. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondents No.1 to 4. In their reply, the said respondents have submitted that pursuant to Advertisement Notice No.02 of 2011 dated 10th October, 2011, 14 candidates including the petitioner responded for 07 posts under the open merit category and the Selection Committee interviewed all the 14 candidates without resorting to shortlisting. After undertaking the selection process, merit list was prepared and as per the said merit list, respondent No.5 obtained 67.69 marks, respondent No.6 obtained 63.88 marks, one Gazia Shaban Shah obtained 62.95 marks, one Manzoor Ahmad Bhat obtained 60.40 marks, respondent No.7 obtained 58.42 marks whereas respondent No.8 obtained 55.27 marks and they were on top of the merit list. The Selection Committee, besides recommending appointment of aforesaid 06 candidates, also recommended appointment of one Reyaz Ahmad Rather who was figuring at serial No.7 in the merit list. His recommendation was made provisionally subject to the relaxation in the upper age limit of one month and twenty-five days. This according to the official respondents was done as the SKIMS, in terms of the conditions of Advertisement Notice, reserved the right to consider the candidature of those candidates who may have crossed the upper age limit if such candidate is otherwise exceptionally qualified in terms of Government Order No.1500 of 2000 dated 21.12.2000. This according to the official respondents was done as the SKIMS, in terms of the conditions of Advertisement Notice, reserved the right to consider the candidature of those candidates who may have crossed the upper age limit if such candidate is otherwise exceptionally qualified in terms of Government Order No.1500 of 2000 dated 21.12.2000. It has been submitted that the case for grant of relaxation in favour of Reyaz Ahmad Rather was forwarded to the Government but the same was not agreed to and his appointment, as such, could not be made. 6. The official respondents have further submitted that the qualification certificates of Gazia Shaban Shah and Manzoor Ahmad Bhat were forwarded to the concerned institutions for verification but it was reported by the concerned institutions that they had not undergone such courses, as a result of which their appointment orders could not be issued. 7. The official respondents have taken a stand that because the petitioner figured at serial No.10 of the merit list and he had obtained only 50.37 marks, as such, he could not be selected as he was not falling in the selection zone. It has been contended that merely because the petitioner has been interviewed does not mean that he has a right to be selected. It has been further submitted that the waiting list of only one candidate was prepared and it was decided by the Selection Committee that in case relaxation in upper age limit in respect of Reyaz Ahmad Rather is not granted, then against the said post Mr. Farooq Ahmad Bhat, who was figuring at serial No.9 of the merit list, would be recommended for appointment. However, after the candidate figuring at serial No.7, Mr. Reyaz Ahmad Rather, could not be appointed because relaxation in his favour was not granted by the Government, the recommendation regarding Farooq Ahmad, figuring at serial No.8 of the merit list, was made but he could not be appointed for the reason that his professional qualification certificate was not found to be genuine. It is in these circumstance that a fresh Advertisement Notice was issued. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the record of selection. 9. It is in these circumstance that a fresh Advertisement Notice was issued. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the record of selection. 9. Certain facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties and the selection record are that 07 posts of Medical Record Technician in the open merit category were advertised by the official respondents in terms of Advertisement Notice dated 10th October, 2011. 14 candidates applied pursuant to this Advertisement Notice for 07 posts in open merit category. Respondents No.5 to 8 figure at serial Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the merit list whereas the petitioner figures at serial No.10 of the merit list. The selection record shows that in the open merit category, against 07 posts, select list of 06 persons i.e., respondents No.5 to 8 along with Gazia Shaban Shah and Manzoor Ahmad Bhat was prepared. For the 7th post, name of Reyaz Ahmad Rather, who was overaged by one month and twenty-five days, was kept in the select list and it was decided by the Selection Committee that his case for relaxation in upper age limit shall be taken up with the Government. The record further shows that the Selection Committee further decided that in case relaxation is not granted, the candidate figuring at serial No.8 of the merit list, namely, Farooq Ahmad Bhat be recommended for appointment. It further emerges that relaxation in upper age limit of Reyaz Ahmad Rather was not granted by the Government whereas the qualification certificates of Gazia Shaban Shah, Manzoor Ahmad Bhat and Farooq Ahmad were not found to be genuine. In these circumstances, the question that falls for determination is as to whether the official respondents were obliged to appoint the petitioner who was figuring at serial No.10 of the merit list and whose name, admittedly did not figure in the select list prepared by the Selection Committee. 10. It is a settled legal position that even if a candidate finds his name in the select list, still then no indefeasible right accrues in his/her favour for being appointed even if vacancies are available. 10. It is a settled legal position that even if a candidate finds his name in the select list, still then no indefeasible right accrues in his/her favour for being appointed even if vacancies are available. The Supreme Court has, in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 , held that even if vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies. The Court further observed that 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. It was further held that the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant Recruitment Rules so indicate. 11. Relying upon the aforesaid ratio, the Supreme Court in the later judgment in the case of Bihar Electricity Board vs. Suresh Prasad, (2004) 2 SCC 681 , has held that in the absence of any statutory rules to the contrary, the employer is not bound to offer unfilled vacancies to the candidates in the merit list. 12. In the instant case, no Recruitment Rule has been brought to the notice of this Court that would bind the official respondents to fill up all vacancies that were advertised in terms of Advertisement Notice dated 10th October, 2011. The petitioner, admittedly, did not figure in the select list. He was figuring at serial No.10 of the merit list. For 07 advertised posts in the open merit category, the official respondents recommended first seven candidates in the order of merit for their appointment. Out of these 07 candidates, the certificates of two candidates were not found to be genuine whereas in respect of third candidate, relaxation in upper age limit was not granted by the Government. The Selection Committee in order to cover the eventuality of non-grant of relaxation in upper age limit in favour of 7th candidate, had recommended the appointment of another candidate figuring at serial No.8 but his certificates were also not found to be genuine. 13. The name of the petitioner did not figure even in the wait list. The Selection Committee in order to cover the eventuality of non-grant of relaxation in upper age limit in favour of 7th candidate, had recommended the appointment of another candidate figuring at serial No.8 but his certificates were also not found to be genuine. 13. The name of the petitioner did not figure even in the wait list. Therefore, the official respondents were not legally bound to appoint him for the vacancies which were created due to non-appointment of four candidates whose certificates were either found to be not genuine or for the reason that the request for relaxation in upper age limit in favour of one of the candidates was not acceded to by the Government. The petitioner, therefore, has no indefeasible right to claim appointment in respect of unfilled vacancies and the official respondents have rightly put these unfilled vacancies to fresh advertisement. No fault can be found in the action of the official respondents. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly. dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall cease to be in operation. 15. Parties to bear their own costs. 16. The record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.