IMPORTANT POINT
Mere inclusion of the name in the list of selected candidates does not confer any right upon any candidate to be selected unless the relevant rules so indicate.

ORDER

This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court, made on November 22, 1996 in O.P.No. 13328/92.

2. The petitioner therein, while working as an Assistant in the Economics and Statistics Department, had applied for recruitment as Legal Assistant Grade II by transfer under Kerala Secretariat Subordinate Service Special Rules (for short, the Rules ). Rule 7 of the Rules prescribes the method of appointment to the post of category 7 viz., Legal Assistants, Grade II, (i) by direct recruitment; of (ii) appointment from Assistant Tamil Translators, and Assistant Kannada Translators; or (iii) appointment or promotion from any other category in Kerala Secretariat Subordinate Service; or (iv) transfer from any category in any Department under the Government or in the service of the High Court of Kerala. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner and others applied for appointment by transfer as Legal Assistant. Rules of rotation and quota have been prescribed in the Rules. Applications were made through Departments, written test was conducted on August 8, 1989 and merit list was prepared on October 23, 1989 for filling up one post of Legal Assistant, Grade II by transfer from other Departments. The petitioner was included, at No. 13, in the merit list. Though vacancies were existing, he was not appointed. Therefore, he filed a writ petition for direction for appointment. Pursuant to the interim direction, he came to be appointed on October 15, 1992. By Notification dated December 15, 1992 applications were called for to fill up the post of Legal Assistant, Grade II from other Departmental candidates. Consequently, the waiting list was cancelled. It was contended that the list prepared in 1989 was still in operation. It was not intended that the list will be restricted to a particular period. The petitioner was appointed to the existing vacancy pursuant to the direction. Therefore, he is required to be regularised irrespective of the notification published on December 15, 1992 calling for applications from other departments. In this background, the High Court held that the appointment of the petitioner, though under the directions of the Court, could not be regularised. The petitioner relied upon Union of India & Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Khatri & Ors.1, and contended that the existing vacancies should be filled up from the select list and that the omission therein is arbitrary and violative of his right. We find no force in the contention. In Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India2, a Constitution Bench had held that mere inclusion of the name in the list of selected candidates does not confer any right upon any candidate to be selected unless the relevant rules so indicate. In Babita Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.3, though the life of the panel was not prescribed, it was directed to be confined to a reasonable time. A long waiting list cannot be kept in infinitum in view of the principle "infinitum in jure reprobatur". A distinction made for the purpose of appointment between those who have already been appointment and those who are in the waiting list or had undergone training and waiting for appointment. It cannot be treated as arbitrary. This Court has held that the panel was too long and was intended to last indefinitely barring the future generations for decades for being considered for the vacancies arising much later. In fact, the future generations would have been kept out for a very long period, if the panel would have been permitted to remain effective till it got exhausted. A panel of that type cannot be equated with a panel which is prepared having co-relation to the existing vacancies or anticipated vacancies arising in the near future. In Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh & Ors.4, it was held that a candidate whose name finds place in the select list for appointment to a civil post does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of