R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

1. The appellants are aspirants for appointment to the post of General Worker in the Pharmaceutical Corporation (Indian Medicines) Kerala Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), a government company. They participated in the interview conducted by the Corporation for selection to that post. They came to know that their names have been included in the select list prepared by the Corporation for appointment. They were under expectation that the Corporation would soon appoint them to the post. When they did not get any orders of appointment, they filed W.P(C) No.25423/2016 against the Corporation and its Managing Director, seeking a writ of mandamus to appoint them to the post of General Worker in the Corporation. They could not succeed in the writ petition. They have now come up in appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The Director Board of the Corporation decided to fill up 10 vacancies in the post of General Worker by appointing persons selected from candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. A selection committee was constituted for that purpose. The appellants participated in the interview conducted by the selection committee from 1.3.2016 to 3.3.2016. As per Ext.P3 proceedings, the selection committee prepared a select list of candidates. But, Smt.S.Nisha, who was Deputy Secretary in the Health Department and who was a member of the selection committee as government nominee, was absent when the selection committee conducted the interview and prepared the select list. The appellants are persons included in the select list. In the meeting held on 5.3.2016, the Board of Directors of the Corporation approved the select list prepared by the selection committee. However, in the meeting held on 6.9.2016, the Board of Directors of the Corporation, decided to constitute a sub committee to examine the legality of the selection conducted and to submit a report. As per Ext.R1(d) proceedings dated 4.1.2017, the sub committee found that selection of candidates by the selection committee was not legal and the sub committee recommended the matter to be placed before the government for consideration.

3. The learned Single Judge found that, absence of the government nominee in the selection committee which conducted interview of the candidates and prepared the select list, is a fundamental defect which vitiates the selection process. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the Corporation to fill up the vacancies in the post of General Worker by conducting fresh selection from the candidates who were already sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader.

5. At the outset, we may point out that no rank list or select list was published by the Corporation. Ext.P3 is not a rank list or select list. It is only a copy of the proceedings of the selection committee. But, it is true that Ext.P3 contains the names of the persons selected by the committee for appointment. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that in the meeting held on 05.03.2016, the Board of Directors of the Corporation decided to fill up the vacancies by appointment of the candidates selected by the committee.

6. The principle that persons merely selected for a post do not thereby acquire a right to be appointed to such post is well established by judicial precedents. A candidate who finds a place in the select list for appointment to a civil post does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed to such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment. He could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons (See Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh : AIR 1993 SC 796). A person who is selected, does not, on accou