JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The selected candidates to whom the offers of appointment were given, did not join the post. Petitioner’s name figured in the waiting/merit list. Subsequent request made by respondent No.2-Board seeking recommendations of the next candidates from the waiting/merit list was not accepted by respondent No.1 on the premise that such request was delayed by 13 days from the outer limit of one year from the date of making initial recommendationsprescribed under its Rules of Business. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. Facts:- 2(i). Respondent No.1-Commission issued an advertisement on 24.05.2022, inter alia, inviting applications for 22 posts of Electrician Power House Electrical (PHE) on contract basis to be filled up against Post Code 974 in respondent No.2-Board. Out of these 22 posts, four were meant for candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes (Unreserved) [in short ‘OBC(UR)’]. Petitioner participated in the selection process against the four posts meant for OBC (UR) category. 2(ii). Combined merit list of written screening test was prepared vide Annexure P-2. Petitioner’s name figured at Sr. No.72. Final result was declared by respondent No.1 on 21.06.2023. S/Sh. Vikram Singh, Abhishek, Abhay Sharma and Sachin were shown to have been recommended for appointment against four posts of Electrician meant for OBC (UR) category. 2(iii). All four candidates recommended by respondent No.1 for appointment as Electrician (PHE) against OBC (UR) category were offered appointment by respondent No.2. These candidates did not join the post within the stipulated period. On 10.10.2023, respondent No.2 requested respondent No.1 to recommend names of equal number of candidates for the post of Electrician (PHE) from the waiting/merit list to enable it to offer them appointments. Five months after receiving the aforesaid communication from respondent No.2, respondent No.1- Commission vide its office letter dated 05.03.2024, informed that fresh recommendations by the Commission can be sent to the appointing authority only after cancellation of the offer of appointment to the previously recommended candidates and if the demand is received within one year from the date of sending first recommendations by the Commission, provided no fresh requisition had been processed and advertisement had not been issued for filling up of the said post in the intervening period. 2(iv). 2(iv). On 02.04.2024, i.e. about a month later, respondent No.2-Board brought to the notice of respondent No.1-Commission that as per Board’s past practices, separate orders cancelling/withdrawing appointment offers/orders are not issued to those who do not join within the prescribed period; This is for the reason that a column is always inserted by the Board in the appointment memo, clarifying that in case the offer is not accepted on the terms & conditions within the stipulated period from the date of issuance of order, the appointment shall stand automatically cancelled. Respondent No.2 once again requested respondent No.1 to send the names of equal number of candidates, inter alia, for the post of Electrician (PHE) from the waiting/merit panel to enable it to issue appointment orders against the vacant posts. Alongwith the response dated 02.04.2024, certain documents were also enclosed by respondent No.2, inter alia, clarifying that four persons selected against four posts of Electrician (PHE) meant for OBC (UR) category had not joined and their offers of appointment automatically stood cancelled as per the terms & conditions mentioned in the appointment memo. 2(v). Vide communication dated 05.04.2024, respondent No.1-Commission, while responding to respondent No.2’s letter dated 02.04.2024, again insisted that as per its Rules of Business, cancellation/withdrawal of appointment offered to the previously recommended candidates has to be issued by the cadre controlling authority to such of the candidates, who had not joined. That it is only after the cancellation/withdrawal of offers of appointment issued to the candidates, respondent No.1 can provide replacement against the non-joining of the post. 2(vi). A Civil Writ Petition, bearing CWP No.1884 of 2024, was instituted by one Sh. Vishal, whose name figured at Sr. No.5 in the merit list drawn for the post of Electrician (PHE), OBC (UR) category, seeking direction to the respondents to sponsor the names of next candidates from the waiting/merit list for filling up the vacant posts of Electrician (PHE). The writ petition was disposed of on 29.04.2024 with a direction to respondent No.2 to respond to respondent No.1 within one week strictly in terms of respondent No.1’s communication dated 05.03.2024. Respondent No.1 was thereafter to take consequent action within one week. Operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “10. Since, it is also not in dispute that waiting panel is still alive, coupled with the fact that petitioner’s name figures at Sr. Respondent No.1 was thereafter to take consequent action within one week. Operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “10. Since, it is also not in dispute that waiting panel is still alive, coupled with the fact that petitioner’s name figures at Sr. No.1 of OBC unreserved category, present petition can be disposed of by issuing direction to the respondent-Electricity Board to send a letter within a period of one week to the respondent-Commission, strictly in terms of letter dated 5th March, 2024, wherein specific information has been sought for, which in turn shall be considered and decided by the respondent-Commission within a period of one week thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, on receipt of recommendation, if any, by respondent- Commission, appointment letter to the petitioner shall be issued by respondent-Electricity Board forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 2(vii). It appears that without complying with the above directions, respondent No.2 mechanically made another request to respondent No.1 on 13.05.2024 to send next names from the waiting/merit list. Respondent No.1 vide its communication dated 14.05.2024, once again apprised respondent No.2 that recommendations and replacements can be provided by respondent No.1 as per its Rules of Business and in light of the same, respondent No.2 had to first cancel/withdraw the offers of appointment issued to the previously recommended candidates, who failed to join their duties, to avoid any litigation; That respondent No.2 had not furnished this information to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 again requested respondent No.2 to do the needful for complying with the order passed by the Court in Vishal’s case. 2(viii). On 17.05.2024, respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 that it had cancelled the offers of appointment of previously recommended four candidates for the post in question, who had not joined within the stipulated period. In the same communication, respondent No.2 requested respondent No.1 to send the names of equal number of candidates next in the waiting/merit list for the four vacant posts of Electrician (PHE) against OBC (UR) category. On 20.05.2024, respondent No.1 recommended names of the next four candidates from the waiting/merit list against four vacant posts of OBC (UR) category. 2(ix). Around this stage, petitioner alongwith others instituted a civil writ petition, being CWP No.4086 of 2024, seeking direction to the respondents to recommend their names from the waiting/merit list against the post in question. On 20.05.2024, respondent No.1 recommended names of the next four candidates from the waiting/merit list against four vacant posts of OBC (UR) category. 2(ix). Around this stage, petitioner alongwith others instituted a civil writ petition, being CWP No.4086 of 2024, seeking direction to the respondents to recommend their names from the waiting/merit list against the post in question. The said writ petition was disposed of on 27.06.2024, directing respondent No.2 to issue ‘appropriate necessary appointment orders with respect to 20 names so recommended in terms of the instructions dated 20.05.2024 placed on record by respondent No.1’. As per these instructions, ‘20 successful candidates whose names had been recommended by respondent No.1 had not joined, therefore, respondent No.1 had further recommended names of 20 candidates, who had participated in the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.05.2022’. 2(x). On 29.06.2024, respondent No.2 offered appointments to the next four candidates recommended by respondent No.1, i.e. S/Sh. Vishal, Sanjeev Kumar, Kamal Kumar and Vinod Kumar. Out of the aforesaid four persons, Sh. Vishal (petitioner in CWP No.1884 of 2024) joined the post in question against the OBC (UR) category. The remaining three candidates to whom offers of appointment were made by respondent No.2 based on the recommendations of respondent No.1, did not join. Thus, three vacancies of Electrician (PHE) meant for OBC (UR) category remained vacant. 2(xi). Two months later, on 23.08.2024, respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 that on 20.08.2024, it had cancelled the appointments offered to the three candidates recommended by respondent No.1 for the post of Electrician (PHE) OBC (UR) category, as they had not joined the post within the stipulated period and therefore, requested respondent No.1 for sending the names of equal number of candidates for the three vacant posts. 2(xii). Respondent No.1 did not take any action on respondent No.2’s letter dated 23.08.2024. Hence, petitioner instituted CWP No.11236 of 2024. The writ petition was disposed of on 04.10.2024 on the assurance of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that necessary action upon respondent No.2’s letter dated 23.08.2024, if not already taken, will be taken within two weeks. 2(xiii). 2(xii). Respondent No.1 did not take any action on respondent No.2’s letter dated 23.08.2024. Hence, petitioner instituted CWP No.11236 of 2024. The writ petition was disposed of on 04.10.2024 on the assurance of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that necessary action upon respondent No.2’s letter dated 23.08.2024, if not already taken, will be taken within two weeks. 2(xiii). On 16.10.2024, respondent No.1 informed respondent No.2 that initial recommendations for the post in question were made by the Commission on 10.08.2023; The request seeking replacement was made by respondent No.2 on 23.08.2024, which is beyond the period of one year prescribed in para 16.8 of the erstwhile H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board/H.P. Subordinate Selection Commission and Clause 6D (VII) of the Rules of Business of respondent No.1-Commission. Hence, request of respondent No.2 for supplying next three names from the waiting/merit list cannot be acceded to being barred by 13 days. 2(xiv). It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive relief:- “I) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, thereby quashing the communication/letter dated 16/October/2024 issued by the respondent No.1, being result of serious/fault lapse of respondents not taking action in the matter in time, and even in the light of Annexure-P/11 & Annexure-P/12 with the further directions to respondent No.1 to recommend the name of petitioner against the post of Power House Electrical (PHE) on contract basis, Post Code-974, against OBC (UR) Category from waiting panel-2, vide Annexure-P/7 Dated 23.8.2024 and Respondent No.2, also be directed to offer the appointment to the petitioner after receiving the recommendation, in pursuance to advertisement No.38-2/2022 Dated 24-5-2022 against the afore-said post, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. Submissions:- 3(i). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that fault, if any, in not timely withdrawing the offers of appointment from the selected candidates, who did not report for duty, lay with the respondents. Referring to several communications on record, learned counsel contended that respondents No.1 and 2 have been merrily communicating with each other with least regard that prompt action on their part was necessitated as that would have impacted the career of the candidates. Referring to several communications on record, learned counsel contended that respondents No.1 and 2 have been merrily communicating with each other with least regard that prompt action on their part was necessitated as that would have impacted the career of the candidates. Had respondent No.2 acted promptly on receipt of respondent No.1’s communications and cancelled the appointments offered to the first lot of four candidates; Had respondent No.1 also responded to respondent No.2’s initial communications in time, the entire process would have been over within the time set out in Rules of Business of respondent No.1 and petitioner would have got the offer of appointment. For the fault of respondents, petitioner should not be made to suffer. Learned counsel further submitted that irreparable loss and injury is being caused to the petitioner as three posts of Electrician (PHE) meant for OBC (UR) category are lying vacant and the petitioner is the only candidate available against these three vacant posts. But for Sh. Vishal, who has already joined on the post, the other selected candidates have joined elsewhere and are not interested to join against the three vacant posts of Electrician (PHE) OBC category. It was also submitted that fresh selection process has not been initiated by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention to Annexure P-8, a chart prepared by the petitioner, reflecting status of the post in question as on the date of filing of the writ petition. The position reflected in this chart has not been disputed by the respondents even during hearing of the case. As per this tabulation, out of eight names recommended thus far by respondent No.1 for appointment against the post in question and to whom the offers of appointment were made by respondent No.2, only one-Sh. Vishal has joined as Electrician (PHE) against OBC (UR) category as the other seven recommended candidates have been selected either elsewhere or have not joined on the posts in question. The petitioner has prepared next panel from the waiting/merit list as under:- “9 Salil Maraina SSA Selected 972006205 66 974002479 OBC(UR) 10 Chanderkant Verma SSA Selected 66 974004657 OBC(UR) 11 Virender Singh 65.5 974006060 OBC(UR) 12 Deshraj SSA Selected 972016214 65.5 974006737 OBC(UR)" Name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No.11, i.e.present No.3, in the waiting/merit list, first eight points having been exhausted. No.11, i.e.present No.3, in the waiting/merit list, first eight points having been exhausted. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, though the candidates figuring at Sr. Nos.9 and 10 have joined elsewhere, however, even if their names are considered, then also, name of the petitioner would figure at Sr. No.3 against three vacant posts reserved for OBC (UR) category. Accordingly, prayer was made to direct respondents to recommend next names from the waiting/merit list and to take further necessary actions for completing the process. 3(ii). Learned counsel for respondent No.1 defended its action in rejecting the request of respondent No.2 for recommending further names against three vacant posts of Electrician (PHE) meant for OBC (UR) category. According to learned counsel for respondent No.1, its actions are in consonance with para 16.8 of the erstwhile H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board/H.P. Subordinate Selection Commission as also Clause 6D (VII) of the Rules of Business of respondent No.1-Commission, as reproduced in the impugned communication dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-15), which reads as under:- “The recommendation of the Board will be valid till the appointments are offered to the candidates by the Appointing Authority or for a period of one year from the date of recommendation with-ever are earliest”. Similarly, as per the HPPSC Rules of Business (Clause 6D (VII) “if a candidate fails to join the post on the basis of the recommendation(s) of the Commission, the replacement will be given by the Commission at its discretion on demand from the concerned appointing authority after cancellation of the offer of appointment of such candidate, if the demand is received within a period of one year from the date of sending recommendation(s) by the Commission to the concerned appointing authority provided that no fresh requisition has been processed and advertisement has not been issued/published for filling up of the said post in the intervening period”. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Commission and the Commission decided that, “The initial recommendation to the aforesaid posts were made on 10-08-2023 and now the request for providing replacement has been received from HPSEBL on 23-08-2024 which is well beyond the period of one year. Hence the request of HP Electricity Board cannot be acceded to”. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Commission and the Commission decided that, “The initial recommendation to the aforesaid posts were made on 10-08-2023 and now the request for providing replacement has been received from HPSEBL on 23-08-2024 which is well beyond the period of one year. Hence the request of HP Electricity Board cannot be acceded to”. In view of the aforementioned provisions of the Rules of Business of erstwhile HPSSSC Hamirpur as well as the H.P. Public Service Commission Rules of Business and further in view of the decision of the Commission, the 2nd time replacement cannot be provided.” It was urged that in view of the above provision, recommendations to the post in question could not be made after expiry of one year from the date of initial recommendations. There was 13 days’ delay in Board’s seeking recommendations/replacement on 23.08.2024 for the names of candidates against three vacant posts of Electrician (PHE) meant for OBC (UR) category from the date respondent No.1 made its first recommendations on 10.08.2023 against the post in question. Reliance was placed upon the decisions rendered in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Versus Surendra Kumar and others, (2019) 2 SCC 195 and Dharmender Kumar Versus State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No.3554 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2020 3(iii). Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2-Board had nothing to do with the selection process or the maintenance of the waiting/merit list; The said exercise was within the exclusive domain of respondent No.1, being recruiting agency in the State. Respondent No.1 had declined the request of respondent No.2 on 16.10.2024, statedly being beyond the period of one year. 4. Consideration:- Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case record. Main question involved in this case is whether the respondents entrusted with conducting aselection process and taking it to its logical conclusion were negligent in not taking timely action at different steps and if so, whether petitioner should suffer for their indifferent attitude to what was at stake for the participating candidates. 4(i)(a). The advertisement in question was issued on 24.05.2022, wherein four posts of Electrician (PHE) were kept reserved for the candidates belonging to OBC (UR) category. The result of the selection process was declared on 21.06.2023. 4(i)(b). 4(i)(a). The advertisement in question was issued on 24.05.2022, wherein four posts of Electrician (PHE) were kept reserved for the candidates belonging to OBC (UR) category. The result of the selection process was declared on 21.06.2023. 4(i)(b). On 10.08.2023, respondent No.1 recommended the names of 22 candidates for their appointment as Electrician (PHE) including four candidates belonging to OBC (UR) category. Offers of appointment were issued to the recommended candidates by respondent No.2. Four candidates belonging to OBC(UR) category did not join within the period stipulated by respondent No.2. 4(i)(c). It was on 10.10.2023 that respondent No.2 wrote to respondent No.1 for providing replacement of candidates selected against 04 posts of OBC (UR) category. Respondent No.1 took five months to respond to the above letter and on 05.03.2024, directed respondent No.2 to first cancel/withdraw the offers of appointment given to the previously recommended candidates to enable it to send replacements/fresh recommendations. There is no explanation in the reply as to why respondent No.1 took five months for responding to the request made by respondent No.2 on 10.10.2023. In case, respondent No.1 felt that such course of action was mandatorily required to be followed by respondent No.2, it was for respondent No.1 to immediately direct respondent No.2 to cancel/withdraw the appointment orders of the recommended candidates, who had not joined their duties. Prompt action was not taken by respondent No.1 on the request of respondent No.2. Five precious months were wasted in responding to respondent No.2’s letter. 4(i)(d). Respondent No.2, instead of cancelling/ withdrawing offers of appointment as directed by respondent No.1 on 05.03.2024, reiterated on 03.04.2024 that as per its past practices, it had never withdrawn the offers of appointment from the recommended candidates, who failed to join the duties; Offers of appointment given to such of the candidates, who failed to join their duties within the stipulated period, were automatically deemed to have been withdrawn/cancelled. Firstly, respondent No.2 did not comply with the directions of respondent No.1 inasmuch as instead of cancelling/withdrawing offers of appointment from the previously recommended candidates, respondent No.2 insisted on 03.04.2024 that such course of action was not required. Secondly, even this communication was sent by respondent No.2, 28 days after receiving respondent No.1’s letter dated 05.03.2024. It was finally on 17.05.2024 that respondent No.1 cancelled/withdrawn the offers of appointment made to previously recommended candidates. Secondly, even this communication was sent by respondent No.2, 28 days after receiving respondent No.1’s letter dated 05.03.2024. It was finally on 17.05.2024 that respondent No.1 cancelled/withdrawn the offers of appointment made to previously recommended candidates. The action, which respondent No.2 ought to have taken months ago, was taken after a long period & after repeated, unnecessary and avoidable exchange of communications with respondent No.1. Precious time was lost by the respondents while carrying out the exercise. The initial delay on part of respondent No.1 to respond to the request of respondent No.2 also assumes significance considering the fact that the second time replacement request made by respondent No.2 was rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground of same being barred by 13 days from the date of making initial recommendations on 10.08.2023. The fall out of the same should not be borne by the petitioner. He was not responsible for the delay that was caused on account of respondents leisurely proceeding in the matter. 4(ii). It was on 20.05.2024 that respondent No.1 made recommendations of next four candidates from the waiting/merit list. And then a month later, on 29.06.2024, respondent No.2 offered appointments to these next four candidates. Out of them, only one candidate joined. Three vacancies of OBC (UR) category remained vacant. Respondent No.2 cancelled/withdrew offers of appointment from the three candidates on 20.08.2024 and called upon respondent No.1 on 23.08.2024 to recommend next three names. Respondent No.1 refused to accept the request of respondent No.2 on the ground of there being 13 days delay on part of respondent No.2 in making this request from the outer limit of one year prescribed under its Rules of Business, from the date respondent No.1 made first recommendations on 10.10.2023. For convenience, a tabulated version indicating the time taken by the respondents in seeking and recommending names for the four posts of Electrician (PHE) meant for OBC (UR) category is drawn as under:- Sr. No. Date Particulars Time gap for response/ action taken by the respondents 1. 21.06.2023 Result of selection process for the post in question was declared. 04 posts were meant for OBC (UR). 2. 10.08.2023 Respondent No.1 recommended names of 04 candidates against 04 posts meant for OBC (UR). 3. 10.10.2023 Respondent No.2 requested respondent No.1 to provide replacements as all 04 selected candidates did not join. 4. 21.06.2023 Result of selection process for the post in question was declared. 04 posts were meant for OBC (UR). 2. 10.08.2023 Respondent No.1 recommended names of 04 candidates against 04 posts meant for OBC (UR). 3. 10.10.2023 Respondent No.2 requested respondent No.1 to provide replacements as all 04 selected candidates did not join. 4. 05.03.2024 Respondent No.1 requested respondent No.2 to first withdraw/cancel offers of appointment given to previously recommended 04 candidates in order to enable it to send fresh recommendations. Respondent No.1 took almost 05 (five) months to respond to respondent No.2’s request for sending fresh recommendations. 5. 03.04.2024 Respondent No.2 did not comply with respondent No.1’s request of withdrawing the offers from previously recommended candidates and insisted that the same was not necessary in view of deemed cancellation clause on non-joining within stipulated period. Respondent No.2 did not comply with respondent No.1’s directions and also consumed 01 (One) month to respond to respondent No.1’s request. 6. 17.05.2024 Respondent No.2 cancelled appointment of 04 candidates originally recommended by respondent No.1 against OBC (UR) category. More than 02 (two) months were taken by respondent No.2 for cancelling the appointments offered to previously recommended candidates. 7. 20.05.2024 RespondentNo.1 recommended names of 20 next candidates from waiting list panel including 04 for OBC (UR) category. 8. 29.06.2024 Next 04 candidates (2nd lot) were offered appointments by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 took 01 (one) month to offer appointments to next four recommended candidates. 9. 20.08.2024 Respondent No.2 cancelled appointments of 03 candidates, who did not join within stipulated period against posts of OBC (UR) category. 10. 23.08.2024 Respondent No.2 requested respondent No.1 to make further recommendations for the three vacant posts. 11. 16.10.2024 Respondent No.1 declined to recommend next three names on the ground of respondent No.2’s request being barred by 13 days under respondent No.1’s Rules of Business. Respondent No.1 took more than two months to respond to respondent No.2’s request dated 23.08.2024. 4(iii). The documents on record and the above table make it manifestly clear that there have been times when respondent No.1 has given responses to respondent No.2’s communication after huge time gap. Also on number of occasions, instead of acting promptly and abiding with the directions of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 had been taking its own sweet time to respond and act. Also on number of occasions, instead of acting promptly and abiding with the directions of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 had been taking its own sweet time to respond and act. Three writ petitions were also filed in this Court on the subject matter seeking directions to the respondents to promptly discharge their duties. The resultant chain reaction delay in seeking recommendations on part of respondent No.2-Board for the three vacant posts from respondent No.1 would not have occurred, had both the respondents, in particular, respondent No.2 acted with diligence, care, caution and with due regard to the fact that their actions were to determine the fate/career of candidates. As the things stand, because of merry-go-round played by the respondents, out of four posts of Electrician (PHE) meant for OBC (UR) category, three are lying vacant. Petitioner is stated to be the only candidate available and desirous of joining the post. He is otherwise at number three in the list of next three in order of merit as prepared by him, which is not denied by the respondents. 4(iv). The names of the candidates recommended in the second instance by respondent No.1 were issued offers of appointment by respondent No.2 on 29.06.2024. Out of these four recommended candidates, only one person (Sh. Vishal) had joined. It was only on 20.08.2024 that respondent No.2 issued cancellation order in respect of offers of appointment made to three other recommended candidates, who had not joined the post in question within the stipulated period. Even though the communication in this regard was sent by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 on 20.08.2024, the documents on record make it amply clear that at times respondent No.1 and at other times, respondent No.2 had been remiss in promptly attending to each other’s communications. Consequence of lapse on part of the respondents in diligently responding to each other’s communication is that fresh recommendations/ replacements sought for by respondent No.2 from respondent No.1 have been delayed by 13 days from the prescribed period of one year under the Rules of Business of respondent No.1. In my considered view, in the given facts and circumstances, this delay deserves to be condoned as it has caused irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. 4(v). Reliance placed by learned counsel for respondent No.1 upon Dharmender Kumar3 is of no consequence. In my considered view, in the given facts and circumstances, this delay deserves to be condoned as it has caused irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. 4(v). Reliance placed by learned counsel for respondent No.1 upon Dharmender Kumar3 is of no consequence. The issue involved therein was “Whether a candidate whose name has been included in the waiting list is entitled for appointment against the unfilled post arising out of the joining and thereafter resignation of the selected candidate”. The instant case does not pertain to situation where candidate whose name was recommended joined the post and thereafter resigned. Here, the recommended candidates never joined, but on account of negligence of respondents, more particularly of respondent No.2, there has been delay in seeking further recommendations/replacements. In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Versus Surendra Kumar and others, (2019) 2 SCC 195 , relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.1, it was held that period of one year for operating the wait list is to be computed from the date recommendations were first made. There is no dispute about this position in the instant petition. The question involved in this petition is different. The point being considered here is where the cadre controlling authority and the recommending authority have themselves been remiss in taking timely action and have rather consumed inordinate time, resulting in 13 days delay in seeking next recommendations, should the petitioner be made to suffer, who otherwise would have secured a job against three vacant posts, that too, meant for OBC (UR) category. It would be pertinent to refer at this stage to Varun Dhiman Versus State of H.P. & ors., CWP No.3366/2020, decided on 20.7.2021 In the said case, three selected candidates did not join their duties and respondent No.3 therein (H.P. Staff Selection Commission) was requested to sponsor names of next three candidates from the waiting list. Respondent No.3 declined the request by invoking its Rules of Business & Procedure, wherein validity of waiting panel was upto one year from the date of recommendations in case of non-joining of earlier recommended candidates. Hon’ble Division Bench found from the records that respondent No.2-Department had not even bothered to deal with files during considerable period. Respondent No.3 declined the request by invoking its Rules of Business & Procedure, wherein validity of waiting panel was upto one year from the date of recommendations in case of non-joining of earlier recommended candidates. Hon’ble Division Bench found from the records that respondent No.2-Department had not even bothered to deal with files during considerable period. Settled legal position was reiterated that: A candidate in the waiting list has no indefeasible right to be appointed; 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 license to act in an arbitrary manner; There has to be a conscious decision even not to fill up vacancies, which also has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. In the facts of the case, deprecating the negligence on part of respondent No.2-Department therein in taking cogent and timely steps in seeking recommendations, it was held as under:- “15 Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, the respondent-State has failed to spell out any cogent and convincing reasons as to why no steps were taken to fill up 3 posts from the waiting list. 16 The officials of respondent No.2 being the government officials are not free to act like an ordinary individual, in dealing with the public appointment, as they cannot act arbitrarily at their own sweet will, rather their action must be in conformity with some standard or norm which are not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. 17 The action of the respondents must not be arbitrary or capricious, but must be based on some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. After all, it is the principle of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in governmental action that lies on the core of entire constitutional scheme and structure. 18 The concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional spectrum and is a golden thread which runs through the whole fabric of the Constitution. Thus, Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution accords right to an equality or an equal treatment consistent with principles of natural justice. Therefore, any law made or action taken by the employer, corporate statutory or instrumentality under Article 12 must act fairly and reasonably. Right to fair treatment is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. Thus, Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution accords right to an equality or an equal treatment consistent with principles of natural justice. Therefore, any law made or action taken by the employer, corporate statutory or instrumentality under Article 12 must act fairly and reasonably. Right to fair treatment is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. 19 As observed earlier, it is highly regrettable that the officials/officers of respondent No.2 have been completely oblivious to the fact that the office entrusted to them is sacred and was meant for use and not for abuse. 20 The officials/officers of respondent No. 2 cannot act as despots or monarchs and are obliged to act in accordance with the principles of democracy, equity, equality and solidarity. 21 The entire scenario shocks the conscious of this Court to come across such inaction committed by those who are at the helm of affairs of respondent No.2. 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 un-necessary 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 not 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. 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. 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. 30 It needs to be noticed that respondent No.2, who very well knew that there had been inaction on his part or his officials part, if not earlier, then at least at the time of filing of reply in the instant petition, instead of candidly admitting such lapses, still chose to claim that everything in his department was hunky-dory. The State is expected to contest the litigation in a fair and square manner and not to conceal anything from the Court. 31 As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents could have been well within their right not to fill up the posts, but that could have only been for some valid and cogent reasons. However, here, there is no reason forthcoming from the side of respondent No.2 and rightly so, because the entire fault lies upon respondent No.2 and its officials/officers, who dumped the file. 35 It is not in dispute that even after offering appointment to 22 candidates from the waiting list, 3 posts were still lying vacant on account of non-joining of the candidates, which were required to be filled up from the next in the waiting list, when the panel was still live unless there was a decision to the contrary. Since there is no such decision, therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part or on account of the fault of respondent No.2 and its officials/officers. 36 Accordingly, while allowing this writ petition, we direct respondent No.3 to sponsor names of three candidates including the petitioner within a period of one week from today and on such sponsorship, respondent No.2 shall issue appointment order(s) to the petitioner and two others as Laboratory Assistant (Allopathy) on contract basis, OBC (UR) Post Code 654.” The ratio of above judgment applies to the facts of present case. 5. In view of above discussion, there is merit in the instant petition. The same is accordingly allowed. 5. In view of above discussion, there is merit in the instant petition. The same is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.1-Commission is directed to make recommendations to respondent No.2 for the three vacant posts of Electrician (PHE), Post Code 974, against OBC (UR) category from the waiting/merit list drawn for the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure P-1, within a period of two weeks from today. Respondent No.2-Board is directed to take further consequential action thereupon within next two weeks. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.