JUDGMENT
A.K. Parihar, J.
1. Petitioner applied for the post of Principal in pursuance to advertisement issued by respondent in February, 1995. Name of petitioner finds place in the reserved list of 23 persons at No. 23.
2. Admittedly, 46 vacancies were notified and all the 46 persons, included in the main list, have been given appointment as per their merit. It is also not disputed that no person lower in merit has been given appointment from the reserved list prepared by the respondents in pursuance to advertisement issued in February, 1995.
3. Subsequently, another advertisement has been issued by the respondents for 49 vacancies in June, 1996. The petitioner, while challenging the advertisement issued in June, 1996 has prayed that respondents be directed to first exhaust the penal prepared in pursuance to earlier advertisement issued in February, 1995.
4. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record.
5. Mere inclusion of name in the penal does not create a vested right in favour of a candidate for appointment. Since no person lower in merit has been given appointment on the post, in absence of any malafides and further, fresh advertisement having already been issued by the respondents for vacancies occurring subsequently, no interference is called for by this Court in such matters under its writ jurisdiction.
6. Even otherwise, keeping the reserved list for unlimited period for appointment on future vacancies shall itself be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because a larger number of candidates who might have acquired the qualification and eligibility subsequently would be deprived of applying for the post. This also jeopardizes the fair competition to get the best qualified persons for appointment. Even the Apex Court has depricated such practice of giving appointment from reserved list on future vacancies. Reference can be made to judgments of Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. Banking Recruitment Board and Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board .
7. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court, keeping one post vacant, stands vacated automatically.