N. M. JAMDAR, J.

1. Both these petitions have been filed by the candidates who were taken on the waiting list for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, and not appointed when future vacancies arose. The petitioners have sought writ of mandamus directing the respondents-the State of Goa to issue appointment orders to the petitioners to the post of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.

2. Writ Petition No. 324 of 2011 is filed by two petitioners. Writ Petition No. 579 of 2011 is filed by one. In Writ Petition No. 324/2011, respondent Nos. 4 to 10 have been joined, who are appointed on the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and whose appointments, the petitioners seek to challenge.

3. Reply affidavit is filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 579/2011. Precipice is filed by the State adopting the reply filed in Writ Petition No. 579/2011 in Writ Petition No. 324/2011. Both these petitions were argued together and are disposed of by a common judgment.

4. The State of Goa, through the Directorate of Transport issued an advertisement on 1 April, 2006 inviting applications for appointment to five posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors. Out of five posts, one post was reserved for the members of the Other Backward Class. The petitioners applied pursuant to the advertisement and the selection process was conducted. After the selection process was completed, the respondent displayed final list of the selected candidates and the petitioners were placed on the select list. The candidates higher on the select list were appointed to the posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and the vacancies notified were filled in. The petitioners were not so appointed. As further five vacancies arose, another advertisement was issued on 1 January, 2007. One more advertisement was issued on 12 February, 2007 for filling up the further vacancies for the post of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, petitioners did not apply in furtherance of either of either of these advertisements. Respondent No. 4 to 10 were appointed.

5. The petitioners made a representation to the Commissioner and the Secretary of Transport that the waiting list/select list upon which the petitioners were placed was valid for one year and, therefore, the right of the petitioners for an appointment on the subsequent advertised vacancies has been violated. The petitioners addressed one more representation on 28 December, 2007 to the Commissioner. The petitioners also made a representation to the Leader of Opposition on 18 July, 2007. The petitioners made a grievance to the Chief Secretary on 22 April, 2008 that the representation made by the petitioners to the Transport Department is not been replied to. On 16 September, 2008, the petitioners filed an application under Right to Information Act for status of the representations made and the action taken as per the report. The petitioners sent a reminder regarding the application under the Right to Information Act on 24 December, 2008. The petitioners sent a legal notice through an advocate. Since the legal notice was not replied to, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 692/2010, which was disposed of on 25 October, 2010, to take a decision as per law. The representation was disposed of on 24 March 2011. The petitioners have filed these petitions in May, 2011.

6. We have heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

7. The primary contention raised by the petitioners is that the waiting list was drawn pursuant to the selection process as per the advertisement dated 1 April, 2006, and the period of waiting list was one year and apart from declared number of vacancies and the vacancies likely to arise during that year should also had to be filled up from the candidates on the waiting list. This contention is based on the Office Memorandum dated 13 June, 2000 and a note appearing in the advertisement dated 1 Apr