ORDER : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 30.9.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the tribunal). 2. The brief facts are that on 23.02.2019 Centralized Employment Notice (for brevity ‘CEN’) was issued for various vacancies including Staff Nurse. There were eighteen unreserved vacancies of Staff Nurse at Ajmer, which falls under the North Western Railway (for short ‘NWR’). 3. The petitioner filled the form giving priority for NWR. On the basis of computer based test, the petitioner was provisionally short listed and was at serial No.22 in the shortlist for the Staff Nurse. The petitioner was unsuccessful in getting appointment of Staff Nurse in NWR. However, vide communication dated 28.10.2022 the petitioner was provisionally selected and recommended for appointment as Staff Nurse in West Central Railway (for short ‘WCR’) and had to report at Jabalpur. The petitioner vide letter dated 28.03.2023 sought an extension of three months and was granted time upto 30.06.2023. On failure of the petitioner to report, the candidature was cancelled. The petitioner filed Original Application (O.A.) before the tribunal aggrieved of inaction of the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the vacant unreserved post of Staff Nurse available in NWR zone. On dismissal of the O.A., the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was at serial No.22 in the list of provisionally shortlisted candidates. There were eighteen vacancies and five candidates had not joined and yet the petitioner was not given an appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that serial number of the shortlist was not as per merit position but as per the roll number. The petitioner was at serial No.28 in the merit list. The contention is that no replacement was sought by NWR for unreserved candidate of Staff Nurse. Replacement was demanded by WCR and the petitioner was recommended for appointment but failed to turn up at Jabalpur even after sorting extension of time. 6. On 25.02.2025 counsel for the petitioner sought time to assist the Court as to whether there was a provision for preparing waiting list and if so, at which serial number the petitioner was placed. Replacement was demanded by WCR and the petitioner was recommended for appointment but failed to turn up at Jabalpur even after sorting extension of time. 6. On 25.02.2025 counsel for the petitioner sought time to assist the Court as to whether there was a provision for preparing waiting list and if so, at which serial number the petitioner was placed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any provision, circular or guidelines that in pursuance to the CEN a waiting list was to be maintained for making further appointments to the vacancies falling vacant due to non-joining of the selected candidates. 7. Clause 1.11 of CEN provides that the option for various zones shall be taken from the candidates while submitting the online applications. As per clause 1.11.3 the Railway Recruitment Board (for short ‘the Board’) reserved right in administrative interest to allot post in the zone not opted by the candidate. 8. The tribunal while dismissing O.A. relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in case of The State of Karnataka and ors. vs. Bharathi S. reported in AIR 2023 SC 2792 , Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India [ (1991) 3 SCC 47 ] ; K. Thulaseedharan vs. Kerala State Public Service Commission [ (2007) 6 SCC 190 ] ; Shubha B. Nair and ors. vs. State of Kerala and ors. [ (2008) 7 SCC 210 ] , wherein, it was held that the high court erred in giving directions to give effect to an additional list for appointing the candidates within three months as it was for the employer to decide whether to fill the vacancies remaining vacant or not. 9. The respondents pleaded before the tribunal that petitioner was at serial No.28 of merit list and this fact is not disputed. 10. Taking the case of the petitioner at the highest for eighteen vacancies of Staff Nurse for unreserved category, five remained vacant as the candidates failed to join. It has not been disputed that the petitioner was at serial No.28 of merit list. In other words, even if for the sake of arguments the contention raised by the petitioner is to be accepted the right first shall accrue to the candidates higher in merit to petitioner. 11. It has not been disputed that the petitioner was at serial No.28 of merit list. In other words, even if for the sake of arguments the contention raised by the petitioner is to be accepted the right first shall accrue to the candidates higher in merit to petitioner. 11. There is no case set up that it is a case of discrimination or arbitrary exercise of power of giving appointment to a candidate in NWR zone who was lower in merit to the petitioner. 12. Another aspect to be considered is that on the basis of demand for replacement the petitioner was recommended for appointment in WCR. The petitioner sought extension of three months which was granted and yet failed to turn up, leaving no option with the WCR authorities to reject candidature. The timeline of the events is of importance. The recommendation of the petitioner was on 28.10.2022, the petitioner sought extension of three months on 28.03.2023 i.e. after five months of the recommendation. The prayer was accepted and the time was extended upto 30.06.2023, thereafter the candidature was cancelled. 13. The petitioner being a shortlisted candidate not even a selected candidate had no vested right for seeking appointment. Be that as it may, the petitioner was recommended for appointment but insistence of the petitioner is for appointment in a particular zone. The language of CEN is unambiguous that the Board reserves a right to allot a zone to the candidate other than the one opted for. 14. To conclude, provisionally shortlisting of the petitioner on the basis of computer based test created no vested right in favour of his appointment. In absence of any pleading that a candidate lower in merit to the petitioner given appointment in NWR, no case is made out of discrimination. The law is well settled that it is discretion of the employer whether to fill the vacancies remaining vacant due to non- joining of the candidates. The petitioner failed to join in WCR inspite of seeking extension of time. 15. There is no factual or legal error in the impugned order much less perversity. 16. The petition is dismissed.