S.RAJENDRA BABU, J.

(1) PURSUANT to an advertisement issued by the appellant, respondent was selected to the post of testing assistant,grade II (operator).

(2) OUT of a panel of 38 selected persons, only 22 persons were appointed. The respondent who remained without being appointed filed a writ petition before the High Court. A learned single judge of the High Court following the decision of the same court in Shivsingh v. State of M.P. [1988 (1) MPWN 24] held that in the absence of any statutory rule requiring waiting list to lapse beyond prescribed limit, the action of the appellant is arbitrary and on that basis, gave a direction to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as per law declared in the said decision. The matter was carried in appeal. In appeal, the view expressed by the learned single judge was reiterated and the appeal stood dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

(3) SHRI V.R. Reddy, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants brought to our notice that the selections had been made pursuant to the procedure prescribed by the M.P.E.B. circular no. PD. IV/1028 dated 9.12.1968. That circular not only pro