1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7657/02 Sita Ram Kumhar vs. State & Anr. Date of order : 2/2/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sumer Singh Shekhawat for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been fled by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be required to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv and accordingly appoint him pursuant to the advertisement dated 3.3.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that originally the respondents advertised 26 posts, but subsequently change has been made and appointment have been made only for 15 posts. Action of the respondents is therefore arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel argued that the name of the petitioner found place at S.No.4 in the merit of O.B.C. candidates and that against 2 26 posts, 6 OBC candidates were required to be appointed. It was argued that two candidates Shri Dilip Srimal and Shri Ram Bharosi Yadav who were in the merit list respectively at S.No.1 and 5, were not interested and did not join and this would correspondingly push up name of the petitioner in the merit list of OBC candidates. The respondents be therefore directed to appoint the petitioner. Learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that 26 posts were advertised by the respondents as they were expecting vacancy in more posts to arise in course of time, but eventually only 11 posts became available and therefore recruitment process was confined to only 11 posts. It was clearly indicated in the advertisement that not filed number of posts could be decreased. Learned counsel submitted that out of 11 posts, only 2 candidates would be appointed in OBC category as per Rules. The first candidate named by the petitioner did not join and therefore the appointment was conferred to the candidate at S.No.3, therefore, the 3 petitioner was not entitled for appointment. It was therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that though the petitioner has asserted that his name was at S.No.4, but it does not confer any right, more particularly when the petitioner has not been able to show that any candidate lower than him in merit is appointed. When the candidate of OBC, who was at S.No.1 did not join, this appointment was offered to the candidates at S.No.3 and thus two appointments were made in the OBC category against 11 posts. I therefore do not find any good reason to issue the writ of mandamus. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/