1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.87/2001. Rajendra Prasad Godara & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. .... Date of Order :: 10th August 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M.TOTLA Mr. Harish Purohit, for the appellants. Ms. Reenu Vyas for Mr. G.R.Calla, Government Counsel. .... BY THE COURT This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 11.12.2000 passed in CWP No.4535/2000. The order impugned reads as under:- “No case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed.” Though the order impugned is essentially a non- speaking order but then, after having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after having examined the record, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has been justified in dismissing the baseless writ petition. The petitioners-appellants filed the writ petition aforesaid seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) an appropriate writ, direction or order may kindly be issued against the respondents to immediately take steps to fill up the sanctioned vacancies of Punjabi Language Teachers and to transfer the general category teachers to their respective place; (ii) without prejudice to the above relief, it is most respectfully submitted that the respondents may be directed to give preference to the candidates who have done School Teaching Training in a minority linguistic language i.e. Punjabi for appointment of 2 teachers in minority linguistic language of Punjabi; (iii) an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued against the respondents to keep appropriate proportion of vacancies amongst minority language teachers particularly amongst Urdu and Punjabi Language Teachers as per the criteria of number of students of Punjabi Language and Urdu Language; and (iv) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in favour of the petitioners may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice.” The reliefs aforesaid, essentially in the nature of mandamus to the employer concerned to fill up the vacancies and that too in a particular manner, was bereft of substance and could only have been dismissed. We find no cause or reason to consider issuance of the mandamus as prayed for. The learned counsel for the appellants made a submission in the alternative that the appellants may be permitted to make a representation to the authorities concerned ventilating their grievances. So far taking recourse to any other remedy including making of a representation is concerned, we would not like to make any other comment in this case; and suffice is to say that the appellants may take recourse to the appropriate remedy in accordance with law. So far this appeal is concerned, we find no reason to show interference. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. s.soni (C.M.TOTLA),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.