http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: MRS.  ASHA KAUL AND ANR.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/04/1993

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1993 SCR  (3)  94        1993 SCC  (2) 573  JT 1993 (2)   688        1993 SCALE  (2)545

ACT: Jammu  & Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial)  Recruitment  Rule 1967: Rules 39. 41 read with Articles 317-320. Constitution of India, 1950--Appointment of  Munsifs--Select list     of     twenty    names    by     Public     Service Commission--Government’s    power    to    disapprove     or cancel--Scope   of--Effect   of  Select   list   after   one year--Inclusion  in select list--whether confers a right  to appointment. Constitution    of    India,   1950    :    Article    136-- Appeal--Appointment  of Munsifs--Government’s action of  not approving  remaining  names in select  list-Interference  by Supreme Court under the circumstances whether called for.

HEADNOTE: On 28.5.1984, the High Court intimated the government of ten vacancies  in  the category of Munsifs and requested  it  to initiate appropriate steps for selection of candidates. Written  test  was held in the year 1985 and viva  voce  was also held by the Public Service Commission. On  10.12.1985  the High Court requested the  Government  to select twenty candidates in the place of ten.  On 27.12.1885 the  Government requested the public Service  Commission  to select  twenty candidates.  On 11.3.1986 the public  service commission  sent three select lists, one  containing  twenty candidates  the  other  containing  three  Scheduled  castes candidates and a waiting list of ten candidates. The Government received several complaints against the  pro- cess of selection.  It was toying with the idea of scrapping the entire list and asking for a fresh selection. 95 On 23.12.1986, as the High Court said that there was  urgent need for at least thirteen Munsifs, the government  approved the name,,,- of thirteen persons out of the list recommended by  the  Public Service commission and published  the  same. They were appointed on 30.12. 1986. Meanwhile  a writ petition had been riled in the High  Court for a direction to the Government to approve and publish the list recommended by the Public Service Commission. On  30.12.1986, the State stated before the High court  that it  has already approved thirteen names and approval of  the remaining seven persons was under its active  consideration.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as settled.   The Government  did not approve any other names in the  list  in view of the complaints against the selection process by  the Public Service Commission. The  candidates in the select list below serial No. 13  were pressing the Government to approve and publish the list  and the  High Court was also pressing the Government to  approve the list in view of the vacancies. Another writ petition was riled to direct the Government  to approve the remaining seven names from the select list. The High Court (Single judge) allowed the writ petition  and directed  the Government to approve and publish the list  of the  remaining  candidates submitted by the  Public  Service Commission to it for appointment as Munsifs, immediately  in accordance  with  the  Jammu  and  Kashmir  Civil   Services (judicial)  Recruitment  Rules,  1967 and  to  consider  the appointment   of   the  candidates   (including   the   writ petitioner-.) as Munsifs in the vacancies existing or likely to arise, in accordance with the recommendations to he  made by the High Court. On appeal, the division Bench of the High Court reversed the decision of the Single Judge. The present appeals by special leave were flied against the 96 decision  of the Division Bench,. contending that  once  the Public Service Commission prepared and recommended a  select list,  the Government had no power to sit in  judgment  over it;  that  the Government was bound to approve the  list  as recommended; that the function of the Government under  Rule 39 of the 1967 Rules was merely ministerial and formal; that the  Government’s  action was arbitrary and  capricious  and vitiated by any admissible and extraneous consideration. The State Government submitted that the function of the Gov- ernment under Rule 39 was not merelY formal or  ministerial; that  the  Government, being the appointing  authority,  was entitled  to  scrutinies  the list open  to  the  Government either  to approve or disapprove the list, either whollY  or in  part-, that a number of complaints were received bY  the Government against the selection and many of them were found to  he not without substance; that in view of  the  pressing need  expressed  by  the  High  Court,  the  first  thirteen candidates  in  the list were approved in  the  interest  of judicial   administration;  that  refusal  to  approve   the remaining   seven  names  inasmuch  as  no  vacancies   were available at that time was a valid and bonafide exercise  of power  and discretion ton the part of the  Government;  that the  appellants  had  no legal right to  be  appointed  just because  their  names  were  included  in  the  select  list prepared by the Public Service Commission. Dismissing the appeals. this Court. HELD:     1.1.  It  is  true  that  the  Government  is  the appointing authority for the munsifs but it is misleading to assert  that in the matter of selection and appointment  the Government  has  an absolute power.  Such an  argument  does violence to the constitutional scheme. (102-F) 1.2. Rule  39  does not confer an absolute  power  upon  the Government  to disapprove or cancel the select list sent  by the Public Service Commission Where, however, the Government is satisfied, after due enquiry that the selection has  been vitiated  either (on account of violation of  a  fundamental procedural  requirement or is vitiated by  consideration  or corruption. favourtism or nepotism. it can refuse to 97 approve the select list.  In such a case, the Government  is bound to record the reasons for its action, and produce  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

same  before a Court, if and when summoned to do  so,  apart from placing the same before the Legislature as required  by clause (2) of Article 323. (103-F-H) 1.3. Art. 323 (2) is meant as a check upon the power of  the Government.   The provision militates against the theory  of absolute power in the Government to disapprove or reject the recommendations of the commission.  For the same reason,  it must  he  held that the Government cannot  pick  and  choose candidates  out of the list.  It is equally not open to  the Government to approve a part of the list and disapprove  the balance. (104-B) 1.4. Where  is  respect of any  particular  candidates  an), material  is  discovered disclosing his involvement  in  any criminal  activity  the  Government  can  always  refuse  to appoint  such person but this would not he a  case  touching the select list prepared and recommended by the  commission. (104-C) 1.5. In this case the Government itself had asked for a list of twenty and the commission had sent a list of twenty.   It could  not have been approved in part and rejected in  part. The  number of vacancies available on the date  of  approval and  publication  of the list is not  material.   By  merely approving  the list of twenty, there was no obligation  upon the Government to appoint them forthwith.  Their appointment depended  upon  the  availability of  vacancies.   The  list remains valid for one year from the date of its approval and publication, if within such one year, any of the  candidates therein  is not appointed, the list lapses and a fresh  list has to be prepared. (104-E-F) 1.6. If  the Government wanted to disapprove or  reject  the list,  it ought to have done so within a reasonable time  of the  receipt  of  the  select list and  for  reasons  to  be recorded.  Not having done that and having approved the list partly  (thirteen  out  of twenty names),  they  cannot  put forward  any  ground for not approving the  remaining  list. Indeed, when it approved the list to the extent of thirteen, it  ought to have approved the entire list of twenty  or  to have disapproved the 98 entire  list of twenty.  The objection, the Government  have pertains  to  the  very process of selection  i.e.,  to  the entire  list  and not individually to any of  the  remaining seven candidates. (104-G) 1.7. Mere inclusion in the select list does not confer  upon the  candidates  included therein an indefeasible  right  to appointment. (104-H) State  of Haryana v. Subhash Chandara Marwaha,  A.I.R.  1973 SC. 2216, M. S. Jain v. State of Haryana , A.I.R. 1977  S.C. and  State  of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty: A.I.R.  1987  S.C. 331, referred to. (111 -E) 1.8. The other aspect is the obligation of the Government to act fairly.  The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a  more farce.  Having sent a requisition/request to the  commission to select a particular number of candidates for a particular category,-in  pursuance  of which the  commission  issues  a notification,  holds  a written test,  conducts  interviews, prepares  a  select  list  and  then  communicates  to   the Government-the  Government cannot quietly and  without  good and  valid reasons nullify the whole exercise and  tell  the candidates when they complain that they have no legal  right to appointment. (105-B-C) Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India. 1991 (3) SCC 47, referred to. 2.   The  Government’s action In not approving the  rest  of the  seven  names in the select list  is  unsustainable  but

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

there  are certain circumstances which induce the Court  not to  interfere  in  this matter.  They are:  (1)  During  the period  of  one year from the date of approval  of  thirteen names  (23.12.1986/30.121986) no vacancy had  arisen,  which means that even if the list of twenty had been approved  and published  on December 23 or December 30, 1986 none  of  the seven persons would have been appointed.  At the end of  one year, the list lapses and becomes inoperative. (II) When the Government failed to act within a reasonable period from the date  of the order (December 30, 1986) of the High Court  in writ  petition 1316/84 (which was disposed of recording  the statement of the Advocate General) the petitioners ought  to have moved in the matter.  They did not do so.  They  waited for  more than twenty months and approached the  High  Court only on 99 September 14, 1988.  This delay disentitles the  petitioners from any relief in the facts and circumstances of the  case. (106-C-G)

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 173031/1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.6.1992 and 2.9.1992  of the  Jammu and Kashmir High Court in L.P.A. No  161/90.  and C.W. P. No. 1352/88. D.D.  Thakur, M.H. Baig.  Rajendra Mal Tatia, Indra  Makwana and  K.  K.  Gupta  (for Suresh A. Shroff  &  Co.)  for  the Appellants. V.R.  Reddy, Addl.  Solicitor General and Ashok  Mathur  for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Heard counsel for the parties.   Leave granted in S.L.Ps. 12608/92 and 16418/92. The  appeals  are  directed  against  the  judgment  of  the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court  allowing a special appeal preferred by the State of Jammu and Kashmir against  the  judgement of the learned  Single  Judge.   The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed  by the appellants herein.  The matter pertains to approval  and publication of the select list of District Munsifs  prepared by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission. On May, 28. 1984 the High court intimated the Government  of ten  vacancies in the category of munsifs and requested  the Government  to initiate appropriate steps for  selection  of candidates.   The  government wrote to  the  public  service commission  and the latter issued the notification  and  put the  process in motion.  Written test was held in  the  year 1985.  viva-voce  was also held.  At that  stage,  the  High Court requested the government (with a copy forwarded to the public  service commission) to select twenty  candidates  in the place of ten.  This was done on December 10, 1985.   The government, in turn, requested the public service commission on December 27, 1985 to select twenty 100 candidates.  On March 11, 1986 the Public Service Commission sent three select lists,. one containing twenty  candidates, the other containing three scheduled castes candidates and a waiting list of ten candidates. From the record placed before us by the learned counsel  for the  State  of  Jammu  and  Kashmir,  it  appears  that  the government received several complaints against the selection process. The government appears to have been satisfied prima facie with some of those complaints and was toying with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

idea  of  scrapping the entire list and asking for  a  fresh selection.  The select list sent by the commission was  kept pending without being approved as required by Rule 39 of the Jammu  and Kashmir Civil Service,,  (.Judicial)  Recruitment Rules,  1967.  Meanwhile, the High Court had  been  pressing for  approval of the names in view of a number of  vacancies and  the consequent accumulation of work.  Number of  courts were  without presiding officers.  In particular,  the  High Court  said,  there was urgent need for  at  least  thirteen Munsifs.  In the circumstances, the government approved,  on December  23,  1986. tile names of thirteen persons  out  of the  list recommended by the public service  commission  and Published  the  same.  They were appointed on  December  30, 1986.  Meanwhile, a writ petition had been tiled in the High Court  for  a  direction to the Government  to  approve  and publish   the  list  recommended  by  the   public   Service commission.  On December 30, 1986. the Advocate General  for the  State stated before the court that the  Government  has already  approved thirteen entries and that the question  of approval of the remaining, persons in the list was under the active consideration of the Government.  Recording the  said statement, the writ petition was dismissed as settled.   The Government  however, did not approve any of the other  names in the lists. evidently in view of the very same reasons for which  they were disinclined initially to approve  the  said lists.   Meanwhile, the candidates in the select list  below serial  No. 13 were pressing the Government to  approve  and publish  the list.  The High Court was also  addressing  the government from time to time to approve the list in view  of certain  vacancies  arising  since the  appointment  of  the thirteen  Munsifs  aforementioned.  Since no  further  names were  being approved by the Government, the  writ  petition, from  which these appeals arise, was filed on September  14, 1988.   The writ petition was allowed on July 11,1990  by  a learned Single Judge and a direction was issued to the State Government to approve and publish the list of 101 the  remaining  candidates submitted by the  public  service commission  to it for appointment as munsifs immediately  in accordance  with  the  Rules of 1967  and  to  consider  the appointment   of   such  candidates  (including   the   writ petitioners) as munsifs in the vacancies existing or  likely to  exist in accordance with the recommendations to be  made by the High Court.  On appeal, the Division Bench  disagreed with the learned Single Judge.  The Bench held that approval and  publication of the select list by the Government  under Rule 39 is not a mere ministerial act but a meaningful  one. It  is  open to the government to examine  the  select  list carefully  and  to reach its own  conclusion  regarding  the suitability  and  merits of the candidates and  publish  the names  of  only  those candidates who  are  found  suitable. While approving the list, the Division Bench held, the State Government  cannot alter or temper with the order  of  merit determined by the commission but it is certainly open to the government to stop at a particular point where it feels that a particular candidate is not meritorious and not to approve the remaining list.  The government is not bound to fill  up the existing vacancies within a particular time-frame.   The mere inclusion in the select list also does not confer  upon the  candidates any indefeasible right to appointment.   The recommendations  of the commission are not binding upon  the State Government-held the Division Bench.  In the facts  and circumstances  of  the  case,  it  must  be  held  that  the remaining   seven  names  in  the  select  list  have   been disapproved  by  the  government.  The  writ  petition  also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

suffers from leaches.  The persons who had meanwhile  become eligible  and  qualified to apply for the said  post  should also  be  given a chance.  A list prepared as  far  back  as 1985-86 cannot be directed to be approved in the year 1992. In these appeals, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the  appellants  that  once the  public  service  commission prepares and recommends a select list, the government has no power  to sit in judgment over it.  It is bound  to  approve the  list  as recommended.  The function of  the  government under  Rule 39 of the 1967 Rules is merely  ministerial  and formal.   Even otherwise, the government has  not  disclosed any  reasons  for  not  approving  the  seven  names   while approving  the first thirteen.  The government’s  action  is arbitrary   and  capricious.   It  is  indeed  vitiated   by inadmissible and extraneous considerations.  The  government cannot  be allowed an absolute power in the matter.  On  the other  hand, it is contended by Sri Dipankar Gupta,  learned Solicitor-General appearing for the State of Jammu and 102 Kashmir that the function of the government under Rule 39 is not merely formal or ministerial.  The government being  the appointing  authority,  is entitled to scrutinise  the  list prepared  by the public service commission.  It is  open  to the  government  either to approve or  disapprove  the  list either  wholly  or in part.  As a matter of  fact,  a  large number of complaints were received by the government against the  said selection and many of them were also found  to  be not  without  substance.  However, in view of  the  pressing need  expressed  by  the  High  Court,  the  first  thirteen candidates  in  the list were approved in  the  interest  of judicial administration.  The remaining seven names were not approved  inasmuch  as no vacancies were available  at  that time.   In  all the circumstances of the case,  the  Hon’ble Chief  Minister  took a decision on March 28,  1988  not  to approve any further names and to go in for fresh  selection. Inasmuch  as the vacancies at the end of the year 1986  were not more than thirteen, the refusal to approve the remaining seven  is  a  valid  and  bonafide  exercise  of  power  and discretion  on the part of the government.   The  appellants have no legal right to be appointed just because their names have been included in the select list prepared by the public service commission.  The first requisition by the High court was  sent in May, 1984.  The written test was held in  1985. The  select  list was recommended in March, 1986.   After  a lapse of more than seven years, the said list cannot now  be directed  to  be  given effect to,  the  learned  Solicitor- general  submitted.  Such a direction would deprive a  large number of persons, who have become qualified and eligible to apply  and  complete  for the said  post  meanwhile  of  the opportunity of applying for the said post.  Many of them may even become age-barred meanwhile, he submitted. It  is true that the government is the appointing  authority for  the munsifs but it is misleading to assert that in  the matter  of selection and appointment the government  has  an absolute  power.   Such  an argument does  violence  to  the constitutional  scheme.   The  Constitution  has  created  a public  service commission and assigned it the  function  of Conducting examinations for appointments to the services  of the  Union or to the services of the State, as the case  may be.  According to Article 320 clause (1) this is the primary function  of the commission.  The Government is directed  to consult  the  public  service  commission  on  all   matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and  to civil posts and on the principles to be followed in  making. appointment   to  civil  services  and  posts  and  on   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

suitability of candidates for 103 such  appointment, among other matters.  An  examination  of Articles  317 to 320 makes it evident that the  constitution Contemplates  the  commission  to  he  an  independent   and effective body outside the governmental control.  This is an instance  of  application of the basic tenet  of  democratic form  of government viz., diffusion of governing power,  The idea is not to allow the concentration of governing power in the  hands of one person, authority or organ.  It is in  the light of this constitutional scheme that one has to construe Rules 39 and 41 of the 1967 Rules.  They read as follows:               39.Final   List:  The  list   of   selected               candidates  after  it  is  approved  shall  be               published by the Government Gazette and a copy               thereof shall be sent to the court along  with               the  Waiting  list, if any, furnished  by  the               commission for record in their office."               41. Security to the list:               The list and the Waiting list of the  selected               candidates  shall  remain in operation  for  a               period  of  one  year from  the  date  of  its               publication in the, Govt.  Gazette or till  it               is exhausted by appointment of the  candidates               whichever is earlier, provided that nothing in               this  Rule  shall apply to the  list  and  the               waiting  list  prepared  as a  result  of  the               examination   held  in  1981  which  will   in               operation till the list or the waiting list is               exhausted." Construed in the above light, Rule 39, in our opinion,  does not  confer  an  absolute  power  upon  the  government   to disapprove  or  cancel the select list sent  by  the  public service  commission.   Where,  however,  the  government  is satisfied,  after  due enquiry that the selection  has  been vitiated  either  on account of violation of  a  fundamental procedural  requirement or is vitiated by  consideration  of corruption, favourtism or nepotism, it can refuse to approve the select list.  In such a case, the government is bound to record  the  reasons for its action, and  produce  the  same before  a Court, if and when summoned to do so,  apart  from placing  the  same  before the Legislature  as  required  by clause  (2) of Article 323.  Indeed, clause (2)  of  Article 323  obliges  the Governor of a State to ray a copy  of  the annual report received from the 104 commission   before   the  Legislature  "together   with   a memorandum  explaining, as respect the cases, if any,  where the  advice  of the commission was not  accepted  (and)  the reasons  for such non-acceptance." Evidently, this is  meant as a check upon the power of the government.  This provision too  militates against the theory of absolute power  in  the government  to disapprove or reject the  recommendations  of the  commission.  For the same reason, it must be held  that the government cannot pick and choose candidates out of  the list.   Of  course,  where  in  respect  of  any  particular candidate   any  material  is  discovered   disclosing   his involvement  in any criminal activity, the  government  can. always refuse to appoint such person but this would not be a case  touching the select list prepared and  recommended  by the commission.  It is equally not open to the government to approve  a part of the list and disapprove the balance.   In this  case, it may be remembered that the government  itself had asked for a list of twenty and the commission had sent a list of twenty. (we are not concerned with the waiting  list

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

sent  by the commission, at this stage). It could  not  have been  approved in part and rejected in part.  The number  of vacancies available on the date of approval and  publication of  the list is not material.  By merely approving the  list of  twenty, there was no obligation upon the  government  to appoint them forthwith.  Their appointment depended upon the availability of vacancies.  A reading of Rule 41 makes  this aspect clear.  The list remains valid for one year from  the date  of its approval and publication.  If within  such  one year,  any of the candidates therein is not  appointed,  the list  lapses and a fresh list has to be prepared.   In  this case, no doubt, a number of complaints appears to have  been received by the government about the selection process.   We have  seen  the  note file placed before us.  It  refers  to certain facts and complaints.  But if the government  wanted to  disapprove or reject the list, it ought to have done  so within  a reasonable time of the receipt of the select  list and  for reasons to be recorded.  Not having done  that  and having  approved  the list partly (thirteen  out  of  twenty names) the\ cannot put forward any ground for not  approving the remaining list.  I indeed, when it approved the list  to the extent  of  thirteen, it ought to  have  approved  the entire list of twenty or have disapproved the entire list of twenty.  The objection, the government have pertains to  the very process of selection i.e., to the entire list, and  not individually to any of the remaining seven candidates. It  is true that mere inclusion in the select list does  not confer upon 105 the  candidates  included therein an indefeasible  right  to appointment  State  of Haryana v.  Subhash  Chandra  Marwaha A.I.R.  1 973 S.C.2216; M.S, Jain v.State of Haryana  A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 276 and State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty  A.I.R. 1987 S.C 331 but that is only one aspect of the matter.  The other  aspect  is the obligation of the  government  to  act fairly.   The whole exercise cannot be reduced to  a  farce. Having  sent  a  requisition/request to  the  commission  to select  a particular number of candidates for  a  particular category, in  pursuance of which the commission  issues  a notification, holds a written test, conducts a notification, holds a written test, conducts interviews, prepares a select list and then communicates to the government-the  government cannot  quietly and without good and valid  reasons  nullify the  whole  exercise  and  tell  the  candidates  when  they complain  that they have no legal right to appointment.   We do not think that any government can adopt such a stand with any justification today.  This aspect has been dealt with by a  Constitution  Bench of this Court in Shankarsan  Dash  v. Union of India 1991 1 3 S.C.C.47 where the earlier decisions of this court are also noted.  The following observations of the court are apposite:               "It is not correct to say that if a number  of               vacancies  are  notified for  appointment  and               adequate  number of candidates are found  fit,               the    successful   candidates   acquire    an               indefeasible  right  to  be  appointed   which               cannot be legitimately denied.  Ordinarily the               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.   Unless  the               relevant  recruitment rules so  indicate,  the               State is under no legal duty to fill up all or               any  of the vacancies.  However, it  does  not               mean that the State has the licence of  acting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

             in  an arbitrary manner.  The decision not  to               fill  up  the vacancies has to he  taken  bona               fide  for  appropriate reasons.   And  if  the               vacancies  or any of them are filled  up,  the               State  is  bound to  respect  the  comparative               merit  of the candidates, as reflected at  the               recruitment test, and no discrimination can be               permitted.   This  correct position  has  been               consistently followed by this Court, and we do               not find any discordant note in the  decisions               in State of Hary-               106               ana  v.  Subhash  Chander  Marwahs,   Neelima.               Shangla v. State of Haryana or- Jatendra Kumar               v. State of Punjab." We may reiterate that the principle of Article 323, referred to  hereinabove,  is equally relevant on the nature  of  the power of the government in such a matter. Looked  at from the above stand-point, it appears  that  the government’s  action in not approving the rest of the  seven names  in  the Select list is unsustainable  but  there  are certain  circumstances which induce us not to  interfere  in this matter.  They are: (i)  During the period of one year from the date of approval of’  thirteen names (23.12.1986/30.12.1986) no  vacancy  bid arisen. which means that even if the list of twenty had been approved  and published on December 23 or December 30.  1986 none of the seven persons would have been appointed.  At the end  of  one year. the list lapis and  becomes  inoperative. The  first letter of the High Court stating that one or  two more vacancies have arisen and requesting the Government  to approve the remaining names, was sent only on August 13,1988 i.e.,  long  after the expiry of the one year  period.   Any direction  at  this  stage to approve the list  would  be  a futile  exercise.  The list cannot be operated with  respect to the vacancies existing as on today; and (ii) When  the government failed to act within a  reasonable period from the date of the order December 30, 1986 ) of the High  Court in writ petition 1316/84 (which was disposed  of recording  the  statement  of the  Advocate  General  )  the petitioners ought to have moved in the matter.  They did not do  so.   They  waited  for  more  then  twenty  months  and approached the High Court only on September 14. 1988.   This delay  in our opinion, disentitles the petitioners from  any relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. For  the above reasons, the appeals fail and are  dismissed. No costs. WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 81 OF 1993: 107 The  petitioner  in this writ petition was included  in  the waiting  list  prepared by the  public  service  commission. Since the appeals preferred by the candidates at serial  No. 14 onwards in the main list have themselves failed. there is no question of giving any relief to this petitioner. The  writ petition accordingly fails and is  dismissed.   No costs. V. P. R. Appeals dismissed. 108