SBCWP NO.4124/2001. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4124/2001. Ramesh Kumar Shringi & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : 2/7/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Tanveer Ahmed for the petitioners. Shri Vijay Dutt Sharma, Deputy Government Counsel for the State. **** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This writ petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset prayed that according to his information, all petitioners except petitioner No.2 have secured appointment yet, he submits that this writ petition still survives on the point whether petitioner No.2 finds place in the reserve list or not. The matter was therefore heard on merits. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that name of petitioners No.1, 3 & 4 appeared in reserved list therefore, they are entitled to be appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.III pursuant to the selection process initiated by the respondents SBCWP NO.4124/2001. 2 vide notification dated 16/5/1998. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that respondents when they prepared merit list included therein the names of 40 candidates who obtained the B.Ed. degree from B.N. Mandal University Lalunagar, Madhyapura and L.N. Mithla University Darbanga with regard to which, an enquiry was conducted and it was decided that they should not be given appointment and it was required by the respondents were required to remove their names from the merit list. It was argued that respondents have deleted reserve list and given appointment to large number of candidates but all such appointments were made due to non-joining of the candidates in the main list. Had the respondents removed 40 names referred to above, petitioners would have also secured appointments. 5) Smt.Parinitoo Jain, learned Deputy Government Counsel contested the writ petition and submitted that name of petitioner No.2 has not at all been included in the reserve list and, therefore, the writ petition qua him is liable to be dismissed as it is. Petitioner No.1 secured 75.60% and he was placed at Sr.No.91 in the reserve list, petitioner No.2 has secured 74.66% and did not find place in the reserve list, petitioner No.3 has secured 75.04% and his position in the reserve list is at No.100 and petitioner No.4 has secured 75.56% and his position in the reserve list is 92. Candidates upto the S.No.85 have been given appointment. Since petitioners No.1, 3 & 4 were having SBCWP NO.4124/2001. 3 lower merit than that whereas, name of petitioner No.2 did not find place in the reserve list. Learned Deputy Government Counsel further argued that names of 40 candidates were not removed from the merit list during validity of reserve list as this dispute was pending adjudication in other writ petitions. Those candidates were asserting that their degree was recognised and so long as their names were not removed, atleast the candidature of the petitioners could not be considered because validity of the reserve list has even otherwise come to an end. 6) I find substance in the submission of the learned Deputy Government Counsel. Merely because the dispute qua other 40 candidates who were higher merit than the petitioners, with regard to correctness of their qualification of B.Ed. was pending, in my view, the petitioners could not be given appointment and now when validity of reserve list has expired, that cannot be questioned. 7) Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage submitted that right of petitioner No.2 may be protected and made subject to final decision in regard to those 40 candidates. 8) Writ in this nature which is based on a future contingency cannot possibly be issued. The writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-