JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to sponsor the names of the petitioners for appointment in pursuance to Annexure P­10 and as per rules ix of the respondent No. 3, may be issued. (ii) That a time bound direction may be given to respondent No. 3 to send sponsor the name of the petitioners and the respondents No. 1 & 2 may be directed to consider the petitioners for appointment forthwith.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record are that on the basis of requisition sent by respondent No. 2, respondent No. 4 i.e. HP Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, initiated process for recruitment of 78 posts of Junior Office Assistant (Accounts) vide advertisement No.37­3/2021 dated 01.12.2021, whereby Online Recruitment Applications (ORA) from the desirous/eligible candidates for the direct recruitment of various posts including post of Junior Officer Assistant (Accounts) Post Code­932, came to be invited. 3. Petitioners herein being fully eligible, applied against the post in question, but were unable to find place in the select list. However, they were placed in waiting panel at serial No. 1 & 2 for the post of Junior Office Assistant (Accounts) Post Code­932. Since candidates figuring at serial No. 9, 17 and 63 i.e. Ms. Madhvi, Ms. Neha, did not attend the documentation process and Ms. Sapna, D/o Padam Singh, failed to join, petitioners herein vide communication dated 31.03.2023 requested Executive Director (Personnel) HP State Electricity Board as well as Chairman Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission to fill up the unfilled seats by sponsoring the names of the candidates figuring in waiting list. Respondent/Electricity Board vide communication dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure P­10) requested the Secretary HP Public Service Commission to recommend the names from waiting panel, enabling it to fill up the balance three posts of JOA (Accounts), however, fact remains that no action was taken and as such, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced herein above. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 2 to 4 have filed reply, perusal whereof clearly reveals that facts as have been noticed herein above are not in dispute, rather stand admitted. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 2 to 4 have filed reply, perusal whereof clearly reveals that facts as have been noticed herein above are not in dispute, rather stand admitted. Admittedly, petitioners herein, after their having participated in the selection process initiated by respondent No. 4 qua the post of JOA (Accounts), though were not able to find place in the final merit list, but their names figured at serial No. 1 & 2 in the waiting list, as is evident from Annexure P­4. It is also not in dispute that some of the selected candidates figuring at serial No. 9, 17 and 63 failed to join on one pretext or the other, as a result thereof, aforesaid three vacancies remained vacant. Since, petitioners were figuring in waiting list at serial No. 1 & 2, they approached Electricity Department as well as Public Service Commission for recommending their names, but fact remains that no action was taken, otherwise also it emerges from the record that before action, if any, pursuant to the request of petitioners could be taken, respondent No. 4 i.e. Staff Selection Commission came to be closed on account of serious complaints. However, work of afore office was then given to respondent No. 3. 5. Vide communication dated 11.05.2023, Executive Director (Personnel) HPSEBL apprised Secretary HP Public Service Commission that though office had issued appointment orders to 72 candidates, but two selected candidates failed to come present for documentation, as a result thereof, two posts are lying vacant and as such, names of two candidates from the waiting panel be recommended, enabling department to fill up the vacant posts. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that pursuant to aforesaid request made by the Executive Director (Personnel) HPSEBL vide communication dated 11.05.2023, response, if any, was ever given by the HP Public Service Commission. Now, since HP Staff Selection Commission has resumed its work, Secretary of Staff Selection Commission has filed reply, wherein only defence sought to be put forth for rejecting the claim of the petitioners is that waiting panel has expired and petitioners approached this Court after expiry of waiting panel. Both the aforesaid defences sought to be raised are not available being contrary to the record. Both the aforesaid defences sought to be raised are not available being contrary to the record. As has been noticed herein above petitioners, immediately after having noticed vacancy on account of non­joining of two candidates, approached electricity Board vide representations dated 31.03.2023 and thereafter respondent/Electricity Board vide communication dated 11.05.2023 specifically requested HP Public Service Commission to recommend the names from waiting panel and as such, it cannot be said that petitioners herein were not vigilant, rather they approached authorities as well as this Court before exhaustion of waiting panel. 5. No doubt, waiting panel prepared at the time of declaration of result was to expire in the month of December, 2023, but in the case at hand present petitioners approached authorities for recommendation of their names from waiting panel on 31.03.2023 and such request was further endorsed/forwarded by Electricity Board vide communication dated 11.05.2023. 6. Leaving everything aside, petitioners approached this Court in the instant proceedings in the month of August, 2023 i.e. much before date of exhaustion of waiting panel. Hence, in the facts and circumstances as discussed herein above, respondent­Staff Selection Commission is estopped from refuting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that waiting panel has exhausted. Since, there was no fault, if any, of the petitioners and they despite there being fully eligible are denied their rightful claim of the appointment against the post in question, prayer made by them through instant petition, otherwise cannot be denied on the ground of delay. Since, it is not in dispute that three posts had become available on or before 31.03.2023 and petitioners' names figures at serial No. 1 & 2 in the waiting list, coupled with the fact that petitioners had made representation, respondent No. 4 had no option, but to sponsor their names, enabling respondent­Electricity Board to offer appointment letter. In similar facts and circumstances, Division Bench of this Court in case titled Varun Dhiman Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) 3 Shim. LC 1473 decided on 20.07.2021, held that once there was no negligence on the part of the candidates their rightful claim cannot be allowed to be defeated on the ground that one year validity of waiting panel stands expired. “6. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) 3 Shim. LC 1473 decided on 20.07.2021, held that once there was no negligence on the part of the candidates their rightful claim cannot be allowed to be defeated on the ground that one year validity of waiting panel stands expired. “6. It was more than four decades back that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that “it must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesses, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesses including award of jobs, contracts quotas, licences etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non­ discriminatory standard or norm and if the government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory (Refer: Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 26). 7. The instant case depicts sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning of respondent No.2 where despite there being 3 vacancies, it took no steps to fill up the same from the waiting list. 8. No doubt, a candidate in the waiting list has no indefeasible right to be appointed because 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 is also settled that unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, that does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner and there has to be a conscious decision not to fill up the vacancies, which has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. 9. However, that does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner and there has to be a conscious decision not to fill up the vacancies, which has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. 9. In Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 268 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is always open to the Government not to fill up all the vacancies for a valid reason, but the selection cannot arbitrarily be restricted to a few candidates, notwithstanding the number of vacancies and the availability of qualified candidates. 10. The ratio laid down in this judgment was affirmed by Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 47 , wherein it was held that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, still the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also stated that it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner and the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. It was declared that 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. 11. In Mrs. Asha Kaul vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1993 SCC (2) 573, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated that mere inclusion in the select list does not confer upon the candidates included therein an indefeasible right to appointment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also stated that there is obligation of the Government to act fairly and the whole exercise cannot be reduced to a mere farce. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also stated that there is obligation of the Government to act fairly and the whole exercise cannot be reduced to a mere farce. It was further observed that having sent a requisition/request to the Public Service Commission to select a particular number of candidates for a particular category in pursuance of which the commission issues a notification, holds a written test, conducts interviews, prepares a select list and then communicates to the Government, the Government cannot quietly and without good and valid reasons nullify the whole exercise and tell the candidates when they complain that they have no legal light to appointment. 12. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it can legitimately be concluded that even though the selected candidate has no vested right in the qualifying examination for getting appointed against the posts advertised/notified, yet the State cannot withdraw the seats arbitrarily without there being any bona fide or appropriate reasons and the selection cannot arbitrarily be restricted to a few candidates, notwithstanding the number of vacancies and the availability of qualified candidates. 22. To say the least, respondent No.2 which is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has conducted in itself of untrustworthiness and like a belligerent litigant has dragged the petitioner to an unnecessary and otherwise avoidable litigation. Instead of gracefully accepting its mistake, respondent No.2 could not resist the temptation of litigation and has fought this legal battle as if it was a war. The battle otherwise is “uneven” as on one side is a public institution whereas on the other side is a private individual. 23. As such, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that public money has been wasted because of adamant behaviour of officers of respondent No.2 due to litigious attitude adopted by these officers in pursuing the instant litigation before this Court and trying to justify the inaction, which otherwise is no at all justifiable. 24. It must be remembered that the State defined within the ambit of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is not an ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook. 24. It must be remembered that the State defined within the ambit of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is not an ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook. The State’s interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. 7. Consequently, in view of discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondent No. 4 is directed to recommend the names of the petitioners forthwith, enabling respondent No. 2 to offer appointment against the post in question. Since, petitioners had been fighting for their rightful claim for considerable time, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done by the respondents expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.