“The sequence of events constituting the factual backdrop is not in dispute. Noticeably, it is not the case of either of the parties that the judgments delivered in Hari Singh & Ors. (supra) and Meenakshi Sharma (supra) have as on date, being interfered with or modified by any higher forum. Though there is no specific direction in Hari Singh & Ors. (supra), for ouster of the candidates earlier selected and appointed, but whose names do not find place in the revised merit list, in our estimate, having regard to the nature of the exercise directed, it was a contemplated and logical consequence as a corollary thereof. In Meenakshi Sharma (supra), the plea, amongst others, that the revision of the merit list ought to be confined only to the writ petitioners, was rejected in categorical terms. That no appointment of any candidate beyond the number of posts advertised in the selection process, has been recorded in emphatic terms. Apart from the fact that the appointment orders of the appellants/writ petitioners did contain a stipulation that the same would be subject to the orders passed in the writ petitions filed before this Court, there is no semblance of any evidence that the 1688 posts said to be vacant as on 1.1.2013 or any number therefrom, had been within the purview of the selection process involved,
