The existence of vacancies does not give a legal right to a candidate in the select list to claim appointment, and the candidates on the waiting list have a limited right to claim appointment against the advertised posts in case of non-joining of selected candidates or other circumstances.

JUDGMENT

1. The applicants pray for modifcation in the judgment dtd. 04/05/2021 delivered in Writ Petition No. 11843 of 2017 to the extent that these applicants who are in the wait list category, should be considered for appointment as against the entire vacant seats available, instead of the 33 posts on which the appointed candidates had not joined.

2. We have considered the lengthy submissions of the learned advocate for the applicants, who has virtually re-argued the writ petition. The law on entertaining a review petition is well settled in Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650.

3. The sole contention of the petitioners is that because there are 215 vacancies available, these petitioners should be considered as against the said vacant seats.

4. The learned advocate representing the Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. submits that the submissions set out in the review petition were considered by the learned Division Bench (Coram : S. V. Gangapurwala and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.) vide judgment dtd. 04/05/2021 in paragraph Nos. 12 to 20. He further submits that these petitioners belong to different categories and they could be accommodated only as against those available posts on which candidates from the particular categories were appointed and who did not join duties. It is further submitted that all the 215 posts would not be available since the subsequent events leading to decommissioning of three major units viz. Unit No.2 at Bhusaval, Unit No.3 at Parali and Unit No.5 at Koradi, consequentially compelled the employer to accommodate the permanent employees working in these units as against the now available posts.

5. For the sake of brevity, we deem it appropriate to reproduce paragraph Nos. 12 to 22 set out in the judgment dtd. 04/05/2021 as under :

"12. The following admitted scenario throws light regarding post advertised, reserved post, general post, number of candidates on select list and wait list.

13. During course of argument Mr. Gaikwad invited our attention to the additional affdavit sworn on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and submitted that Unit-3 at Parli TPS is decommissioned. It is not enough Unit-5 at Koradi TPS and Unit -2 at Bhusawal TPS are also decommissioned in view of resolution passed by the board. The employees who were working in the above said units were required to be accommodated at other generation plants as such it was not possible for the MSPGC Ltd., to fll all the posts advertised. It was a bonafde decision taken by the MSPGC Ltd. The petitioners have no legal right to seek appointment even though certain posts are vacant.

14. It is well settled position of law that selected candidate has no indefeasible right to be appointed. Existence of a vacancies does not give legal right to a candidate in select list to claim appointment and reliance can be placed to that effect in case of The State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha and others (Supra). In case of Jatinder Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (Supra) it is held by the Apex Court that a person selected by the Subordinate Service Selection Board for direct appointment to the post of Assistant SubInspector of Police has no legal right to be appointed on the basis of recommendation made by the said Board.

15. The process of selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipatory vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post which can be in force by mandamus. In case of Madan Lal and others V/s State of J. and K. and others (Supra) it is observed by the Apex Court that the life of selection list get exhausted the moment all vacancies are flled up or after expiry of one year, whichever is earlier that was a case in which the rules stipulated the list of panel for a period of one year. Therefore, the legal position is very much clear that the persons whose names appearing in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed but have a limited right to claim appointment agains