Order : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. These petitions are filed seeking quashing of order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the tribunal’) dated 11.08.2022 to the extent it quashes the selection process qua the appointment of Chowkidar. Shri Satish Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘successful candidate’) selected to the post of Chowkidar has filed writ petition No.8877/2023. The petitioner in DBCWP No.12630/2023 Shri Rajkumar Pachouri (hereinafter referred to ‘petitioner’) appeared in written examination. 2. The brief facts are that selection for various posts was advertised on 20.04.2012. The dispute in these cases is with regard to the post of Chowkidar for which one post was advertised. As per the advertisement, the selection was to be made strictly on the basis of merit. The process comprised of written test and skill test wherever necessary. Marks for written test and for skill test were 150 and 50 respectively. After conducting the written test, interview was added to the process and 175 marks were allocated for interview. 3. The petitioner secured 71 marks in written test and 70 marks in interview. The successful candidate secured 61 marks in the written test, lowest marks secured by any candidate in written test. But he was awarded 152 marks in interview 56 marks above the highest marks given to other candidate. The petitioner filed the Original Application (O.A.) before the tribunal for setting aside the selection of the successful candidate. Further directions were sought that the petitioner be selected on the basis of marks secured in the written test. 3.1 The respondent took a stand that for the skill test the weightage was of 50 marks but since there were seven persons in the interview board and to ease the process, twenty five marks each were allocated per member for moderation purposes. Further that the skill test was necessary as the selection was for sensitive defence establishment affected by dacoity. The stand taken by the respondent was prima facie not found to be fair. The tribunal called for the record and the Appendix-M i.e. marks given to each of the candidate was revealed and this document was not produced before the tribunal along with the reply filed by the official respondents. The tribunal held that all well established norms for selection evolved through judicial process were given a go-bye, the rules were changed between the game and disproportionate weightage was given to the interview. The tribunal held that all well established norms for selection evolved through judicial process were given a go-bye, the rules were changed between the game and disproportionate weightage was given to the interview. The selection qua the appointment of Chowkidar was quashed. 4. The observations were made that deliberate attempt of misleading was made by the official respondents and had record not been called the attempt of the official respondents would have gone unnoticed. The tribunal exercised a self restrain for not ordering prosecution for forgery, but directed the higher officials of the respondent-department to conduct departmental inquiry to fix responsibility for filing a false written statement and to take disciplinary action against the official concerned. As the entire selection process was quashed, the prayer of the petitioner seeking appointment on the post of Chowkidar was not granted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is litigating for twelve years and no benefit has accrued to him. The prayer is that the petitioner be appointed to the post of Chowkidar on the basis of the written test marks. Reliance is placed upon this judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bishnu Biswas & Ors. vs. Union of India & ors. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 774 to contend that instead of quashing the entire selection process the matter should have been remitted back for selection in accordance with the scheme of examination given in the advertisement. 6. Learned counsel for the successful candidate submits that the impugned order was passed by the tribunal without properly serving notice on successful candidate. It was only after the termination of service consequent to the impugned order that this writ petition was filed. It is argued that the successful candidate has continued to be in service and has become age barred now. 7. Learned counsel for the UoI submits that the impugned order was not challenged and has been implemented. The court is apprised that the departmental inquiry in pursuance to order of the tribunal has been initiated. 8. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to reproduce Appendix-M relied upon by the Tribunal:- 9. It is not disputed that after holding the written examination the entire scenario of the selection process was conveniently not altered but sea changed. To start with the marks for the written exam and for skill test wherever required were 150 and 50 respectively. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to reproduce Appendix-M relied upon by the Tribunal:- 9. It is not disputed that after holding the written examination the entire scenario of the selection process was conveniently not altered but sea changed. To start with the marks for the written exam and for skill test wherever required were 150 and 50 respectively. In other words, skill test was not applicable for appointment of each and every post advertised. In the name of the moderation 175 marks were allocated for interview as compared to 150 marks of the written exam. The Appendix-M reproduced above is an indication of how the marks were allocated to ensure that the marks obtained in written examination are rendered redundant. The person having highest marks in written exam was allocated 51 marks in interview. The selected candidate having got lowest marks in written exam was given 152 marks in interview i.e. 56 marks more than the maximum marks given to any other candidate. The things had not ended there, the entire process was tried to be brushed under the carpet before the tribunal by withholding the relevant information. The summoning of the entire record by the tribunal opened the can of worms. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment should be given on the basis of the written exam is ill-founded. The entire selection process was quashed and the official respondents have chosen not to challenge it. No vested right was created in favour of the petitioner by appearing in written exam. Other aspect is that the petitioner was not the highest scorer in the written examination and the prayer was rightly declined by the tribunal. 11. Reliance upon the decision in Bishnu Biswas & ors. (supra) does not enhance the case of the petitioner. In that case the Supreme Court was dealing with the case where rules of the game were changed after conducting the written test. Whereas in the present case not only the rules were changed but the marks were allocated in a manner to ensure that the entire process of selection becomes pliable. It would be important to note that before the Supreme Court, the advertised posts were 8 of Group D and 870 candidates appeared in the written exam and the selected candidates were 573, whereas, in the case in hand only one post was advertised. 12. It would be important to note that before the Supreme Court, the advertised posts were 8 of Group D and 870 candidates appeared in the written exam and the selected candidates were 573, whereas, in the case in hand only one post was advertised. 12. The contention that the petitioner inspite of litigating for twelve years has not got any benefit, is noted to be rejected. The petitioner was not selected initially, the challenge was made to the selection of the successful candidate which itself does not ensure that the petitioner would be successful in getting an appointment. At the cost of repetition even if the marks in written examination are considered the petitioner was not the highest mark securer. 13. The petitioner had only appeared in written examination and was not a selected candidate. Even other, it is settled law that selection of a candidate creates no vested right. Reference be made to the decision of Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Ors. vs. South East Central Railway and Ors. reported in (2019) 12 SCC 798 . 31. In another judgment reported in Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532 , this Court held that the name of a candidate may appear in the merit list but he has no indefeasible right to seek an appointment. It was held as under: 10. It is fairly well settled that merely because the name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give him indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. The name of a candidate may appear in the merit list but he has no indefeasible right to an appointment vide Food Corporation of India v. Bhanu Lodh (2005) 3 SCC 618 , All India SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen (2001) 6 SCC 380 and UPSC v. Gaurav Dwivedi (1999) 5 SCC 180 . 11. This Court again in State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda (2010) 6 SCC 777 , held as under: (SCC p. 783, paras 14 & 16) 14. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at 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. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at 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. * * * 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. 12. In Manoj Manu v. Union of India (2013) 12 SCC 171 , it was held that (SCC p. 176, para 10) merely because the name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give the candidate an indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. It is always open to the Government not to fill up the vacancies, however such decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Once the decision is found to be based on some valid reason, the Court would not issue any mandamus to the Government to fill up the vacancies. As noticed earlier, because twenty-two other candidates were declared successful by the Supreme Court pertaining to the selection of the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 as Civil Judges (Junior Division), they were to be accommodated, as rightly resolved by the Administrative Committee in the meeting dated 6-7-2011. The three resultant vacancies of the year 2007-2008 stood consumed with the joining of the said seventeen candidates and the same could not be filled up from the select list of that year. The decision of the Administrative Committee observing that the three resultant vacancies stood consumed is based on factual situation arising there and cannot be said to be arbitrary. 14. Before concluding it would be fair to deal with the contention of learned counsel for the successful candidate. We need not dilate at this stage with regard to service of notice on the successful candidate. It would suffice to say that the selection process was to be defended by the official respondents which they miserably failed to do so. 14. Before concluding it would be fair to deal with the contention of learned counsel for the successful candidate. We need not dilate at this stage with regard to service of notice on the successful candidate. It would suffice to say that the selection process was to be defended by the official respondents which they miserably failed to do so. Once no case is made out for interference in the quashing of the selection process, the successful candidate has no right to continue on the post to which he was selected upon by a process which has been quashed. In other words, the grievance of the successful candidate against the termination order has been rendered academic as we have upheld the quashing of the selection process. 15. Another angle is that for violation of principles of natural justice matter is not to be mechanically remanded in case the exercise of remand would be futile. After the selection having been quashed no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to tribunal for granting an opportunity to successful candidate. Reference is made to decision of Supreme Court in Escorts Farms Ltd. (Previously known as M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd.) v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & Ors. reported in 2004 (4) SCC 281 held:- “64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Rem and of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” 16. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” 16. Considering that during pendency of the litigation there was an interim protection in favour of the successful candidate consequent to which he was continuing to serve, in case the respondent chose to re-advertise the post and in the eventuality of request being made by the successful candidate for relaxing the age to determine the eligibility, it shall be considered sympathetically. 17. There is no legal or factual error in the order of the tribunal quashing the selection process qua the post of Chowkidar advertised on 20.04.2012. 18. These petitions are dismissed.