The main legal point established in the judgment is that waiting lists can only be operated in specific contingencies and cannot be used to fill future vacancies beyond the advertised number of posts. The court emphasized that vacancies cannot be filled beyond the notified vacancies and waiting lists are not a reservoir for future appointments.

D.N. Patel. J.

This writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the petitioners are waiting list candidates for the post of Lady Supervisor and they want appointment. In all there were selection of 12 Lady Supervisors. In pursuance of the public advertisement for 12 vacancies all the candidates who were selected• have already joined. The petitioners are in the waiting list and under the hope that waiting list will be operated but it has not been operated at all. The petitioners have recounted the vacancy for the post so advertised namely. Lady Supervisor and have pointed out that instead of 12 there were 16 vacancies. This information was obtained under the Right to Information Act. 2005 and as per Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition there were 4 more vacancies for the post of Lady Supervisor as on May 2009.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that at least 4 waiting list candidates who are the petitioners before this Court ought to have been in the selected list for the post of Lady Supervisor. There is a wrong calculation of the vacancy of the post by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the advertisement issued by the respondents for the post in question which is at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. As per Clause 6 of the advertisement especially second paragraph thereof for all the vacant posts of Lady Supervisor the merit list will be operated and on the basis of this Clause 6 of the advertisement also it is claimed by the petitioners that in all there were 16 vacancies and. therefore all the 4 waiting list candidates ought to have been appointed on the post of Lady Supervisor. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there were no statutory rules not to operate the waiting list and hence also the petitioners who are in the waiting list for the post of Lady Supervisor should have been appointed like those selected candidates because there were already 4 vacancies with the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Naseem Ahmad and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 734 especially upon paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 thereof and it is thus concluded that even though the petitioners are in the waiting list because of four more vacancies' available at the relevant time for the post in question these petitioners could not have been enlisted in the waiting list but they ought to have been enlisted in the selected list candidates and they ought to have been appointed on the post of Lady Supervisor and therefore this petition may kindly be allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no legitimate right vested in the petitioners to get themselves to be appointed as they are in the waiting list and the waiting list has not been operated by the State. There was public advertisement for 12 posts of Lady Supervisor. All those who have been selected have joined the services and therefore no question of operating the waiting list whatsoever arises. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that waiting list is not reservoir of the candidates who can be appointed even against the future vacancies. The waiting list can be operated only for the posts for which advertisement was given. The waiting list can be operated only in certain contingency like if any selected candidate has not joined the services or if any candidate who has joined the services and left for any reason whatsoever or if any selected candidate has expired or in such other similar situated conditions then only waiting list can be operated. In the facts of the present case all the 12 candidates who were selected for the post of Lady Supervisor have joined the services and none of them have resigned or left the services. In that situation waiting list cannot be operated for the vacancy which has not been adver