IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 137 of 2007 (S/S) Dan Singh S/o Late Shri Lal Singh ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents/State. Nine posts of Chaukidar was advertised in daily newspapers by the respondents in the year 2005 inviting applications for appointment on such posts. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied and an interview took place on 7th June, 2005. It is alleged that the petitioner’s name was found at S.No.7 of the merit list. The petitioner contends that the respondents appointed only six persons and did not fill up the three posts and, eventually, when the petitioner enquired, he was informed that the validity period of the life of the panel of the select list had expired and, therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed pursuant to the select list. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid information, has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Chaukidar in the office of respondent No.3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit admitting that nine posts were advertised and that the select list was 2 prepared, out of which, six posts were filled up. The respondents have, however, contended that three posts could not be filled up due to non-commencement of the admission in the Science subjects at the post-graduate level and that the appointments were to be issued only after the commencement of the admission at the post-graduate level. It is stated that since no admission took place in three science subjects at the post-graduate level, no appointment letter was issued since there was no requirement. The respondents have further stated that the life of the select list is one year as per Rule 18 of Class D Service Rule, 2004. The validity of the select list expired on 7th June, 2006, and, therefore, the petitioner could not be considered any further. The fact that no admission took place in three science subjects at the post-graduate level has not been denied by the petitioner. Consequently, the stand of the respondents not to appoint the petitioner or other persons from the select list was justified. The mere fact that the name of the petitioner is found in the select list, does not give him an indefeasible right for an appointment. The Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 has held that the selected candidate does not have any indefeasible right for appointment even against the existing vacancy. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 18.05.2010 Shiv