As per case facts, petitioners applied for lineman posts advertised in 2011. A Public Interest Litigation led to a court order restricting initial appointments to one thousand posts, pending a ... commission report. The respondent later canceled recruitment for the remaining posts. Petitioners challenged this cancellation, arguing they had a vested right to appointment, were denied natural justice, and should benefit from subsequent age relaxation. The question arose whether candidates who participated in a recruitment process, later restricted by court orders and then canceled for remaining posts, acquired a vested right to appointment. Finally, the Court, relying on precedents, ruled that successful candidates have no indefeasible right to appointment beyond the advertised or permitted vacancies. The advertisement was confined to one thousand posts, and future vacancies cannot be filled from an expired selection list, nor does age relaxation for subsequent recruitments create a vested right for the original advertisement.