ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 7.10.2021 passed by learned Single Jude in W.P.(S) No.3915 of 2014 the writ petitioners/ appellants have preferred this intra court appeal. 2. The writ petition was filed for quashing the letter dated 4.10.2013 issued by the Director, Department of Agriculture and Cane Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and by the said letter, the Deputy Commissioners of all the districts of Jharkhand were directed to start fresh process for appointment of Village Level Worker instead of appointing same panel. The prayer was also made for quashing of the order dated 12.6.2014 whereby appointment of the petitioners/ appellants and others were cancelled to the post of Village Level Workers and further prayer is made to issue appointment letters in favour of the appellants. By the judgment dated 16.08.2021, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition holding that selected candidates did not have any legal right to get appointed if they are selected and on the other hand the life of the panel is for one year even in the absence of any rule. 3. The writ petition was filed contending there that a general notification was issued by the Department of Agriculture and Cane Development, Government of Jharkhand, for appointment of Village Level Worker bearing Advertisement No. 45918 dated 18.10.2011. It is to state and submit that the aforesaid appointment was district level and the appointment as per the decision of the Government was to be made by Zila Parishad of the individual district. In view of the aforesaid advertisement, total number of vacancies for the district of Deoghar was 110 out of which 55 unreserved, 14 Schedule caste, 14 Schedule Tribe, 11 Backward class and 16 Backward class (Annex.-1). The petitioners / appellants had applied for the aforesaid post in the district of Deoghar. It is to state and submit that the examination was conducted on 08.01.2012 at different centre in the State of Jharkhand. The result was declared and the Deputy Commissioner of each district was directed to inform the candidates as per the approved reservation roster for the district and shall take all steps for formal appointment. It is to state and submit that the examination was conducted on 08.01.2012 at different centre in the State of Jharkhand. The result was declared and the Deputy Commissioner of each district was directed to inform the candidates as per the approved reservation roster for the district and shall take all steps for formal appointment. Accordingly the District Appointment Committee in their meeting dated 01.02.2013 recommended the names of the writ petitioners/ appellants and others for appointment on the post of Village Level Worker in the district of Deoghar. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar through Registered Post sent letters on 09.02.2013 to the individual candidates for submission of original certificates and documents on or before 27.02.2013. The writ petitioners/appellants submitted their relevant documents and certificates before the concerned authorities and after receiving the same, the petitioners / appellants were directed by the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Deoghar to deposit the fees for verification of the documents vide letter dated 18.07.2013. Accordingly the writ petitioners/ appellants deposited the fee for verification of their certificates before the concerned authorities and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, had sent the documents to the concerned authorities for verification, vide letter dated 30.08.2013. The respondent authorities after verification of the certificate placed the matter in the meeting of the Zila Parishad through letter no. 818 dated 20.11.2013. In the meantime, the Director, Department of Agriculture, Government of Jharkhand, had issued on 04.10.2013, for cancellation of the process of appointment of Village Level Worker on the ground that the validity of the Panel prepared by the respondent is only for one year and after lapse of the aforesaid period, there is no valid ground for appointing on the said Panel. Although the recommendations of the petitioners / appellants were within one year and the delay was due to latches and negligence on the part of the respondents in getting the certificate verified. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Deoghar, cancelled the recommendation of the writ petitioners/appellants for their appointment on the post of Village Level Worker vide memo no.256 dated 12.06.2014. The writ petitioners/appellants had made several representations before the respondent authorities for their appointments, but the respondents knowingly and willingly sat over the matter for reasons best known to them. The order contained in Annexure-6 and 7 are illegal, arbitrary and fit to be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The writ petitioners/appellants had made several representations before the respondent authorities for their appointments, but the respondents knowingly and willingly sat over the matter for reasons best known to them. The order contained in Annexure-6 and 7 are illegal, arbitrary and fit to be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was contended that the names of the writ petitioners/appellants were recommended long back within one year of the preparation of the Panel, but the respondent authorities knowingly and willingly delayed the process of appointment. The delay in final appointment of the writ petitioners/appellants was due to the latches and negligence on behalf of the respondents and there is no fault of the writ petitioners/appellants. The writ petitioners/appellants are unemployed youth and they are being harassed by the respondent authorities. 4. The respondent State has appeared and contested the writ petition by way of filing counter affidavit and it was argued before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the respondent State that the name of the appellants/ writ petitioners were considered for appointment pursuant to the meeting held on 01.02.2013 when 13 selected candidates did not join but while their certificates were under process of verification, the life of merit list/panel which was for one year i.e. from 27.04.2012 to 27.04.2013 expired and since till that time the verification of original certificates of these petitioners could not be received, therefore, they were denied appointment. That the allegation of the writ petitioners/appellants that the appointment could not take place due to laches on the part of respondents is not true because from perusal of list of dates it would transpire that petitioners’ name were recommended well within time on 01.02.2013 but before the certificates could be verified; life of panel expired. 5. It was concluded that any person whose name appears in the selected list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment and empanelment at best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself it does not amount to selection or create any vested right to be appointed. 5. It was concluded that any person whose name appears in the selected list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment and empanelment at best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself it does not amount to selection or create any vested right to be appointed. It was contended that now the law is no more res-integra, inasmuch as, merely because a candidate is selected or kept in waiting list; he or she does not acquire any absolute right to be appointed and it is always open to the Government to make appointment or not even if there is any vacancy and it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same. 6. In support of contention on behalf of respondent State counsel for the State relied upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. v. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 ; paragraph Nos.14 to 16 are quoted hereinbelow:- “14. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. 15. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of the candidate’s name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. The candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been given a hostile discrimination. 16. A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. It is the settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the court after the expiry of the select list. If the selection process is over, select list has expired and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the court at a belated stage.” 7. It is the settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the court after the expiry of the select list. If the selection process is over, select list has expired and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the court at a belated stage.” 7. Further learned Single Judge’s attention has been drawn towards the resolution dated 07.12.2012 that in this Resolution wherein it has been clarified that the life of panel will be one year from the date of issuance of merit list is clarificatory in nature, inasmuch as, this Resolution has been issued taking recourse of clause-16 of Jharkhand State Jan Sevak [ Bharti Evam Seva Shartein] Niyamawali, 2011 and clause-16 clearly says that if there is any confusion with regard to any clause of the rules then the decision of the Secretary of the Department will be final and since there was confusion with regard to life of panel, it was clarified that life of panel would be one year from the date of publication of merit list. 8. Further it was submitted that the allegation of the writ petitioners/ appellants that in absence of any Rule the date of one year should be reckoned from the date of recommendation is also not tenable in the eye of law as it is a settled law that even when there is no rule or where the rules are silent on this point; the period of panel would be one year from the date of publication of the merit list. Even otherwise, the name of the petitioners were recommended by the committee after the publication of the Resolution dated 07.12.2012; since the certificates were not verified in accordance with law and the life of panel lapsed, as such no relief could be granted to these writ petitioners/ appellants, inasmuch as, now it is no more res-integra that the life of panel remains valid for one year and in the instant case since the result/merit list was published on 27.04.2012, as such the life of panel ceases to exist on 27.04.2013 and admittedly, the verification of certificates reached the office only on 15.07.2013. 9. In view of the above argument of the learned counsels on behalf of the parties, the learned Single Judge relying on the judgments has given the finding as stated hereinabove. 9. In view of the above argument of the learned counsels on behalf of the parties, the learned Single Judge relying on the judgments has given the finding as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved with that, the writ petitioners/appellants have preferred this present appeal. 10. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered that the first merit list of 106 candidates was published on 22.6.2012 by the Establishment Committee and as per the aforesaid notification dated 22.6.2012 they were asked to join by 29.6.2012 subject to final verification of the certificates by the District Establishment Committee in its meeting dated 17.08.2012. The proforma respondents were recommended by the District Establishment Committee on 01.02.2013 and directed the selected candidates to submit their certificate by 27.02.2013 and for the same individual letters were also issued to the 13 candidates. He further submits that learned Single Judge has not considered that the certificates were already submitted before 27.02.2013 and for that, verification was to be made instantly and the appellants were not to deposit the amount as required in pursuance of the letter dated 18.07.2013. He submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter that the different stand has been taken by the concerned authority. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter that the merit list was prepared and published on 05.3.2012 and the selection of the writ petitioners was made within one year by the District Establishment Committee on 01.02.2013 and as per the decision of the District Establishment Committee the writ petitioners/ appellants were directed to submit their certificates before 27.02.2013 that is within one year of the publication of the merit list. He submits that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration that there is no clause with regard to lapse of panel within one year in the rules of Jharkhand State Jan Sevak [ Bharti Evam Seva Shartein] Niyamawali, 2011. In this ground, he submits that the writ petition was wrongly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 11. Mrs. He submits that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration that there is no clause with regard to lapse of panel within one year in the rules of Jharkhand State Jan Sevak [ Bharti Evam Seva Shartein] Niyamawali, 2011. In this ground, he submits that the writ petition was wrongly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 11. Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, the learned A.A.G.-I appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the learned Single Judge has elaborately dealt with all the issues which have been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants and thereafter has come to that conclusion and there is no illegality in the impugned order. She submits that the learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration clause 16 of the Jharkhand State Jan Sevak [ Bharti Evam Seva Shartein] Niyamawali, 2011. In view of that clause, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to non-existence of any rule is misconceived. On these grounds, she further submits that this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 12. We have gone through the contents of the writ petition as well as the annexures. The learned Single Judge has found that on 27.04.2012 a merit list was published in daily news paper in which the names of 10 successful candidates were published and the names of appellants did not find place in the said list. Out of 110 successful candidates, only 106 candidates were selected for joining and out of which, 110 candidates joined as Village Level Worker (VLW) and subsequently 4 V.L.W. also tendered their resignation. Thus, out of 110 vacancies, only 97 V.L.W continued on that post and 13 posts remained vacant. A decision was further taken that district selection committee, Deoghar to recommend the names of 13 candidates and accordingly on 01.02.2013 names of these appellants along with others were recommended and they were asked for submission of their original documents by 27.02.2013. They submitted the certificates for verification and the said verification report could not reach the Department on or before 27.04.2013 rather it reached on 15.07.2013. 13. They submitted the certificates for verification and the said verification report could not reach the Department on or before 27.04.2013 rather it reached on 15.07.2013. 13. The learned Single Judge has framed the issue for decision as to whether the original merit list was published on 27.4.2012 and as such the panel lapsed after one year i.e. on 27.04.2013 or it should be reckoned from the date of recommendation of these writ petitioners/ appellant vide Resolution dated of the meeting dated 01.02.2013. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there is no any legal right to be appointed and life of panel remains valid for one year and for that, he relied in the case of State of Bihar & Others v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 12 SCC 561 . The learned Single Judge relying on the judgment of State of Rajasthan and Others v. Jagdish Chopra, (2007) 8 SCC 161 has held that even when there is no rule or rules are silent on this point, the period of panel would be one year from the date of publication of merit list. Clause 16 of Jharkhand State Jan Sevak [ Bharti Evam Seva Shartein] Niyamawali, 2011 was considered by the learned Single Judge and he found that the Secretary of the Department can take a final decision and certainly that issue with regard to life of panel has frequently recurred as such in the Resolution dated 07.12.2012 it has been categorically stipulated that the period of panel will be one year to be reckoned from the date of publication of the merit list. The verification certificates reached only on 15.07.2013 i.e. much beyond the date of publication of merit list. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the selected list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointment and if selection process is over and select list has expired then no relief can be extended to the candidates. A Resolution dated 17.12.2012 was found to be clarificatory in the nature whereby it has been clarified that the period of panel will be one year to be reckoned from the date of publication of merit list. A Resolution dated 17.12.2012 was found to be clarificatory in the nature whereby it has been clarified that the period of panel will be one year to be reckoned from the date of publication of merit list. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of All India S.C/S.T Employees Association and Another v. Arthor Jim and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 380 , the learned Single Judge has rightly came to the conclusion that merely because the name of some of the candidates were included in panel indicating their provisional selection they did not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment, even against the existing vacancies and the State is under the legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. 14. In view of the finding of the learned Single Judge as we have discussed hereinabove, we find that the learned Single Judge has dealt with the issue in question elaborately and has rightly came to the conclusion and has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition. There is no apparent error on the face of it. 15. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, we find that no interference is required in the order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, L.P.A. No.344 of 2021 is dismissed.