S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) A short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the respondent herein had any legal right for being appointed against the post of three security guards advertised by the appellant institute.

( 3 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. An advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of security guards. There were three permanent posts. The select list contained names of five candidates. The name of the respondent appeared at Sl. No. 4 therein. It was finalized on 11. 04. 2005. It had a validity period of one year i. e. upto 10. 04. 2006. Whereas two candidates were offered appointments on 13. 04. 2005 and 5. 05. 2005, the third candidate was offered appointment on 13. 06. 2005. He declined the same. Respondent, however, for reasons best known to the appellant, was not offered any appointment. He filed a writ petition questioning his non-appointment on 12. 12. 2005.

( 4 ) ON or about 13. 07. 2005, however, a purported policy decision was taken to contract out some of the services in a phased manner to make the administration efficient and cost effective in the following terms:

"after deta