1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.2316/2010 Jagdev Singh Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 28.9.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Tanveer Ahmed - for petitioner Mr NA Naqvi, Addl Advocate General – for respondents BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been filed to seek a direction against respondents for appointment of petitioner on the post of Prabodhak irrespective of the fact that post in OBC category in district Jaipur is not available. It is alternatively prayed that petitioner may be considered for appointment in district Jhalawar. Third alternative prayer is to direct respondents to prepare merit list of Prabodhak on state level instead of district level. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that an application for consideration of candidature of petitioner was made in district Jaipur as well as district Jhalawar, however, petitioner was not given appointment on account of low merit 2 though he possesses requisite experience of more than five years as teacher in a recognised private institute and the certificate to this effect has been duly countersigned. Petitioner could not find place in merit precisely for the reason that merit list was prepared at district level and not at state level. It is on that ground only that petitioner is deprived in getting appointment. It is also urged that around 5000 posts of Prabodhak are lying vacant thus a direction may be issued to respondents to fill up all such posts. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. Perusal of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 shows that appointing authority is Additional Chief Executive-cum-District Education Officer of the concerned district or the authority to whom such delegation of power is made. Rules further provides receipt of application and its scrutiny by the District Education Officer. It is clearly borne out by rule 24 of aforesaid Rules. As per rules 25 and 26, recommendation for appointment has to be made by the Committee and, thereupon, appointment order has to be issued based on selection by the Committee. Constitution of Committee is provided under the Rules of 2008 which also shows to be at district level. From provisions of the Rules of 2008, it is coming out clearly that 3 selection to the post of Prabodhak are made at district level and it is for that reason alone that while advertisement was issued at Annexure-1, posts of Prabodhak were advertised at district level. However, petitioner, while making prayer, had first made a prayer to seek direction for appointing petitioner in district Jaipur and, alternatively in district Jhalawar. The last prayer was made to seek a direction for making appointments by preparing merit at state level. The last prayer made is contrary to the first two prayers so made. Petitioner appeared in the selection process and failed to secure merit position, now challenging criteria for preparation of merit. It is settled law that once a candidate appeared in the selection and failed to secure merit position therein cannot subsequently challenge even the criteria for preparation of merit. In this case, merit list has been prepared at district level as per Rules of 2008. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the arguments so raised by learned counsel for petitioner for preparation of merit list at state level. So far as direction for filling up around 5000 posts of Prabodhak is concerned, no such direction has been prayed by petitioner in prayer clause and even otherwise such a prayer cannot be granted by this court. It has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if candidate is selected and find place in 4 the selection list, he cannot make claim for appointment. In the light of aforesaid, prayer made orally during course of argument, is also rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (MN Bhandari) J. bnsharma