ORDER Per: Sanjeev Sachdeva, Acting Chief Justice 1. Appellant impugns order dated 8.1.2024 whereby the petition filed by the appellant seeking grant of appointment to the post of Sports Officer has been dismissed. 2 . Petitioner applied pursuant to an advertisement by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission in the year 2018 for the post of Librarian and Sports Officer in the OBC category. Select List was issued on 7.12.2018. However, petitioner’s name did not figure in the select list but was put in the waiting list at serial No.51. 3. Petitioner approached this court contending that since petitioner was placed in the waiting list and there were still post vacant, he be considered for appointment. 4. By the impugned order learned Single Judge has held that life of the waiting list was one year and since the select list was published on 7.12.2018 and one year having elapsed, the life of the waiting list had expired and accordingly, no direction could be issued to consider the petitioner in the said waiting list. 5. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on communication dated 7.6.2023 whereby a direction has been issued for character verification of 6 candidates. 6. Over 300 posts were advertised and select list was issued as back as on 7.12.2018. Merely because character verification of 6 individuals is sought to be done in 2023 would not imply that the selection process is still continuing. The selection process got over with the publication of the selection list and the time for those candidates to join has also elapsed. Admittedly, the candidates pursuant to the said select list have already joined. 7. In our view, the selection process got over with the candidates joining pursuant to the select list. Petitioner did not figure in the select list and was placed in the waiting list. It cannot be expected that the waiting list will continue in perpetuity. The wait list has a life of one year and the life has since elapsed. No direction can be issued after a lapse of over six years to the respondents to consider any person in the waiting list. 8. It cannot be expected that the waiting list will continue in perpetuity. The wait list has a life of one year and the life has since elapsed. No direction can be issued after a lapse of over six years to the respondents to consider any person in the waiting list. 8. By the impugned order learned Single Judge has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh AIR 1994 SC 764 and Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1995 SC 1088 to hold that the select list once made does not exists forever and gets exhausted if the candidates in the select list join and the appointments are made. 9. In the instant case, the result was declared in the year 2018 and the waiting list lapsed in the year 2019. Accordingly, no relief could have been granted to the petitioner. In our view the learned Single Judge has correctly held that since the waiting list has lapsed in the year 2019, no relief could be granted to the petitioner who approached this court in the year 2023. 10. Merely because character verification of some of the selected candidates was done in the year 2023 would not revive a list that has already lapsed in the year 2019. 11. We find no merits in the appeal, the appeal is consequently dismissed.