JUDGMENT Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. - The Petitioners challenge the Notice dated 30 June 2020 issued by the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby the request of the Petitioners for extending the validity of the wait list has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under : The Petitioners responded to an advertisement dated 11 April 2018, inviting applications from eligible candidates for 68 posts of Peons. As per the advertisement notifcation, besides a select list of 68 candidates, a wait list of another 68 candidates was to be prepared. The names of the Petitioners fgured in the wait list. Admittedly, all 68 candidates on the select list joined against selected posts on different dates. Thereafter, out of the candidates who had submitted their joining reports, 3 candidates resigned, while one was discharged from service. The Petitioners, who otherwise fgured in the wait list, therefore, started making efforts to seek an extension in the validity of the wait list, which was otherwise to remain valid only for a period of two years, hoping that they would get appointed against the posts that had fallen vacant. The prayer of the Petitioners, however, stood rejected by the Chief Justice vide the Order dated 17 June 2020, on account of the fact that all 68 vacancies having been flled up, the wait list did not survive. 3. The issue that arises in the present case is whether the Petitioners whose names fgured in the wait list have any right of consideration for appointment against the posts, which fall vacant after the posts had been duly flled up in the selection process. If the answer is in the negative, then the challenge to the Notice impugned dated 30 June 2019 would fail. 4. A similar issue had also arisen in Priti Subhashrao Sawake Vs. If the answer is in the negative, then the challenge to the Notice impugned dated 30 June 2019 would fail. 4. A similar issue had also arisen in Priti Subhashrao Sawake Vs. The State of Maharashtra Writ Petition No.10510 of 2022 decided on 9 January 2023, where on almost similar facts, where the Petitioners in the said Petition were seeking appointment in excess of the vacancies advertised based upon the fact that their names fgured in the wait list, whose validity period had otherwise expired, a Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Thakur J) was a member, dismissed the Petition by inter alia holding that merely because the names of the candidates fgured in the wait list by itself created no indefeasible right to seek appointment. It was also held that candidates' right to seek appointment was limited to consideration for appointment, in a case where any of the selected candidates did not join and further that no appointment could be made in excess of the posts advertised. It was also held that the wait list could not be used as a perennial source of recruitment, as it would deprive others from consideration for such an appointment and create a vested interest in favour of those, whose names fgured in the wait list. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the cases of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association Vs. State of Gujrat 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, Prem Singh Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board 1996 SCC (4) 319 and Madan La Vs. State of J & K (1995) 3 SCC 486. It was thus held that once the advertised vacancies are flled up the list would exhaust itself. 5. The Petitioners in the present case do not deny the averments made by the High Court in its affdavit that all 68 posts advertised had been flled up and that it was only subsequently that 3 selected candidates resigned after joining and one who was discharged from service. Any vacancy accruing subsequently, thus, would not result in a vacancy, which would be required to be flled up from out of the wait list, assuming that it was still valid. 6. Any vacancy accruing subsequently, thus, would not result in a vacancy, which would be required to be flled up from out of the wait list, assuming that it was still valid. 6. We, accordingly, hold that once advertised vacancies were flled up, the select list as also the wait list would exhaust itself, therefore, no right would survive in favour of the Petitioners as was the view taken by this Court in Priti Subhashrao Sawake (supra). 7. Be that as it may, the Petition is found to be without merit and is, thus, accordingly, dismissed.