1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2078/02 Abdul Mugni vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 17/1/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.P. Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Urdu Teacher Gr.III in compliance of the judgement passed by this Court dated 12.8.01. Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the originally prepared merit list, the name of the petitioner was shown at S.No.18 whereas the number of advertised vacancies were 10. It is further contended that actual number of vacancies available with the respondents were much more and which is why, the respondents in compliance of the aforesaid judgement of this Court have proceeded to make appointment even upto merit no.15 in 2 the list. Even then it is argued that only 9 appointments would be made against 10 advertised vacancies. There was no reason not to have operate the merit list beyond no.15. Had that been done, the petitioner at S.No.18 would be entitled to appointment. Learned counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Yasmeen Khanam vs. State & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1672/97 and three connected writ petitions decided by common judgement dated 10.8.2001 and has argued that this Court in these cases took a serious note of the fact that the originally prepared merit list was tinkered with and interpolations were made therein and it was then revised so as to give undue advantage to certain persons. The Court directed that the appointment of such persons would be deemed to have been cancelled and fresh exercise shall be undertaken and also directed an enquiry into the matter. It is contended that the appeal filed by the State against the said judgment has been dismissed. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government counsel opposed the writ petition 3 and submitted that no candidate lower in merit than the petitioner has been appointed and that the number of vacancies that were advertised were only 10. The name of the petitioner was at merit list S.No.18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the cited judgements as also the other material on record, I find that this is not even the case of the petitioner that any candidate lower than him in merit has been appointed. The direction was to give appointment as per originally prepared merit list and number of vacancies that were advertised was only 10. The petitioner who admittedly was at S.No.18, if appointed, this would require similar appointment to be offed to candidates at S.No.16 and 17. It is also not clear whether all that other candidates above merit no.15 were offered appointment or if offered, they declined the same. In view of this and at this distance of time, the kind of mandamus prayed for, cannot be issued. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. RS (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. 4 RS/