1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 348 of 2001 JUGAL KISHOR & ORS V/S STATE & ORS Mr. NARPAT SINGH, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 9.7.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal the appellants seek to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.8.2000 dismissing the writ petition. The appellants had sought appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III in accordance with the provisions of Rule 274 of the Rules of 1996 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 9.1.1997. The petitioner also prayed that respondents may be directed to operate the select list by giving appointment to 505 persons. Even according to allegations of the writ petition, 318 persons were given appointment and it was claimed that the respondents are bound to fill up vacant posts. Then in para 15 it is alleged that appointments have been given to 335 persons. 2 We find from the reply that according to the respondents in pursuance to the advertisement dated 9.1.1997 335 vacancies were available. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no interim order and the select list expired long back. It was also noticed that it is not the case of the petitioners that any person having lesser merit in the select list has been offered appointment and that no vacancies are available. It was also observed that merely because a person finds place in select list cannot seek appointment as a matter of right. It was also observed that the select list has already been expired before filing of the writ petition. Of course, the writ petition was filed on 29.11.1997, it cannot be said that select list had expired. But then that does not solve the problem of the appellants, in as much as, admittedly appointments have been given to number of persons to the extent of number of vacancies advertised and to that extent the petitioners can not stand in merit to compete them. Admittedly, no person with lesser merit than the petitioners has been given appointment. 3 In our view, petitioners can not be conceded any right to seek mandamus from this Court to give appointment to the persons finding place in the reserved list, simply because according to the petitioners more number of vacancies were admittedly available at the time of, either issuance of advertisement or at the time of issuing of appointment orders. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /jgoyal /