1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1564/2005 Vishal Jain & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 23.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for the petitioners. Mr. Tarun Joshi, for the respondent RPSC Mr. SM Toshniwal Asstt to AAG. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners alleged that they are having requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III and all the petitioners are belonging to the general category and they applied for their selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 2nd June, 2004 issued by the RPSC. According to the petitioner, the total advertised posts of Teacher Grade-III were 25712 out of which 13139 posts were required to be filled up by general category candidates, but the respondents to fill up the back log of 6257 posts, which were of the last many years and which were reserved for categories of SC/ST and OBC, are filling up all those posts in this selection process. By this, the posts of general category candidates have been reduced substantially. The writ petition was submitted in court on 17th March, 2005. The respondents submitted detailed reply raising 2 preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that advertisement was isued on 2nd June, 2004 and the petitioners took chance of selection under the said advertisement and the result was declared by the respondents in the first week of Jan., 2005 and after declaration of result, after three months, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. In view of the above, the petitioners themselves took chance of getting appointment under the advertisement Annex.1 dated 2nd June, 2004 and when they failed in getting appointment, then they preferred this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioners deserves to be dismissed only on this count. It is also submitted that out of 25712 posts 6252 posts were filled up as against back log and large number of appointments have already been given by the time when reply was filed. On merits in para no.8 the respondents give detailed bifurcation by which the seats were allotted for various categories. It appears from the facts mentioned above itself that the petitioners knowing it well about the allocation of the seats took chance of selection and when results were declared and when they found themselves unsuccessful in the result then they approached this Court. The writ petition also has been filed after delay and during this period, 3 appointments have already been given which have not been challenged and which cannot be challenged without impleading those selected candidates as party in the writ petition. In view of the above reasons, on preliminary objections alone, the writ petition of the peititoners is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.Goyal/-