WP(C) 5267/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA None appears for the petitioners on call. Ms.P.Chakraborty learned Stand ing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a directi on to respondent No.2 to appoint them as Supervisor pursuant to their purported selection in 2005. According to petitioners out of 127 selected candidates 37 ha ve been appointed and in spite of large numbers of vacancies being available, th ey have not been appointed. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition as to h ow many vacancies had been advertised and also as to whether the petitioners hav e been superseded in appointment. Merely because the petitioners were placed in the merit list, the same by itself cannot clothe them with any kind of right for appointment unless it is shown that they have been denied appointment illegally . In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that out of the total vacancy numbering 34, same vacancies had been filled up by reserve d category candidates i.e. SC/ST candidates. The petitioners’ positions in the m erit list being below Serial No. 34, naturally they could not be appointed. Mere existence of future vacancies not covered by advertisement cannot clothe the pe titioners with the right of being appointed against the said posts The writ petition is dismissed.