Inclusion in the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and the decision not to fill up vacancies must be taken bona fide and must pass the test of reasonableness.

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 detailed deliberations, it was resolved that (i) a copy of the request sent to the Employment exchange, Thiruvananthapuram may simultaneously be circulated/ posted by the institute to all the Employment Exchanges in kerala especially in case of direct recruitment of group D posts specifying the number of candidates to be sponsored for each post so as to achieve a wider coverage; (ii) in the case of Group c and B Direct recruitment posts, paper advertisement shall, continue to be resorted in one or two leading newspapers and (iii) for temporary vacancies/ leave vacancies of Cleaning Attendants/ security Guards, the external contract system prevalent in BMT Wing may be extended to the hospital Wing also in a phased manner. "

( 5 ) A resolution was adopted by the Governing Body in a meeting held at the Institute on 29. 12. 2005 in the following terms:

"we have been deliberating for quite sometime on contracting out some of the services on a phased manner to make it more efficient and cost effective. It is noted that the security at BMT wing, Poojappura that was contracted out on a trial basis has been found successful. It was noted that at present there are 2 permanent vacancies of Security Guards and 2 permanent posts of Drivers that are lying vacant. It was resolved to abolish these vacant posts and services may be contracted out/ hired and ratify the decision of the Director not to fill the two vacant posts of Security Guards and Drivers on permanent basis. "

( 6 ) A learned Single Judge of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 20. 09. 2006 inter alia opined:

"5. I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. No doubt, the petitioner approached this Court on 12. 12. 2005. Ext. R1 (b)decision is dated 29. 12. 2005. But, I do not think that that is sufficient to overturn the decision of the management. The question as to which are the posts to be filled up, is all a management decision. Ordinarily, it is not for this Court to veto the wisdom of the employer in regard to the posts which are to be retained and posts which are to be abolished. A decision to abolish a post cannot be attacked by a person figuring in a rank list, unless, no doubt, an extraordinarily case of malice or per se arbitrary action is established. Apparently, the respondents felt that the post need not be retained, having regard to the advantages that would flow from contracting of these services as also the pecuniary loss that would otherwise flow. It is hard to characterize such a decision as arbitrary, as sought to be shown in the Reply Affidavit. It is settled law that a person in the rank list has no legal right to command the employer to appoint him. This is not a case where after having taken a decision to fill up the posts, the respondent is not of