Candidates in the waiting list do not have an indefeasible right to be appointed against existing vacancies.

1. The petitioner has approached this court for direction to the respondents to make appointment from the waiting list prepared by the Bihar Public Service Commission to the posts ot Civil Judge (Junior Division) as advertised under the 26th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination, 2005, due to non-joining of the candidates or the vacancies that occurred because some of the candidates left the service after joining.

2. According to the petitioner, he appeared in the 26th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination, 2005 and after having passed the written examination, he was called for interview, but his name did not appear in the list of select candidates. By referring counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the writ petition filed by Archana Tiwari, the petitioner has stated that 83 seats are still to be filled for Civil Judge (Junior Division).

3. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions contained in the Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1955. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ranjit Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Others, 1997(2) PLJR 960. He also referred to another decision of this court in the case of Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union through its Secretary Shri Umesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1998(1) PLJR 905.

4. in our considered view, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance. As a matter of fact, in the case of Ranjeet Kumar Singh, the Single Judge has referred to a Government resolution (circular dated 17th June, 1977). One of the clauses in the said circular is thus:

"(xiv) Vacancies remaining unfilled due to candidates not joining the post or for any other reason shall be carried forward to the next year."

5. There is, thus, a decision by the Government that vacancies, that remained unfilled due to the candidates not joining the post or for any other reason, shall be carried forward to the next year. In the light of the Government circular dated 17th June, 1977, the petitioner cannot claim that the candidates from the waiting list must be recommended if the vacancies remained unfilled due to candidates not joining the post or for any other reason.

6. The ultimate order in Ranjit Kumar Singh has to be confined to the facts obtaining therein. The iegal position is no more res integra that a candidate who is in waiting list, is not entitled to be offered unfilled vacancies because of non-joining of the candidates or leaving the service after joining. The Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Suresh Prasad and Others, (2004)2 Supreme Court Cases 681 [:2004(2) PLJR (SC)137] held thus:

"6. We find merit in this appeal preferred by the Board. In the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India it has been held by this Court that even if number of vacancies are notified for appointment and even if adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against existing vacancies. That ordinarily such notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. It was further held that the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules indicate. In the present case we are not shown any such relevant recruitment rules. Moreover, there is no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of Respondents 1 to 7 that the appellant had violated the order of the High Court dated 23.3.1994 by preparing a list of only 22 candidates instead of filling up 50% of the alleged 161 vacancies. In this connection, the impugned judgment of the High Court has recorded a finding of fact that the Board has rightly reduced the number of vacancies to 50 and to that extent claim of the writ petitioners was rejected. In the impugned judgment, the High Court fo