- (1.) THOUGH the matter was listed for on respondents' application for vacation of stay order dated 15. 10. 2001 but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being decided finally since the arguments advanced during the course of hearing by the learned counsel touch upon the merits of the case and keeping in view the fact that the career of large number of students, who are to be appointed on the post of Teachers is involved in the instant matter.
(2.) THE grievance, which has been raised in the writ petition is that both the petitioners are having the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-II (Science) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11. 9. 1998 (Ann. 1) issued by the Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur and hence, they should have been given appointment on the said post. THEir contention is two fold (i) that atleast 35 posts of Teacher Grade-II in all were advertised and the appointment was subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions and the petitioners had in compliance thereof submitted requisite documents for being considered for appointment (ii) to allow regular pay scale from the date of their appointment. As per petitioners case, undisputably they were empaneled in the select list prepared and they were placed at S1. No. 36 & 49 respectively and were also called for interview in pursuance of the letter dated 16. 12. 1998 (Ann. 2 ). The petitioners have further contended that prior to their appearing before the Interview Board, they submitted an application for calculating their marks secured by them in B. Ed. Examination. As per formula provided by Dayal Bag Educational Institute (College), Agra, the petitioners have secured 72. 55 and 71. 25 percent marks respectively. According to the petitioners, the respondents had miscalculated the percentage of marks on the basis of average obtained by the petitioners in various subjects and even on the said formula it comes to 71. 55 and 69. 40% respectively. As regards the above contention, the arguments which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the respondent University is not governed by any formula of Dayal Bag Educational Institute, Agra and hence the petitioners submission is not binding on the respondent- State. It is not the petitioners case that they had secured higher percentage of marks than the last candidates appointed by the respondents nor they have made out any case on the touch stone of alleged arbitrariness for violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India that the petitioners have been treated arbitrarily as against those candidates who were lower in merit have either been appointed or even considered for appointment by the University in any manner. Hence, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted merely because of the fact that the second advertisement dated 25. 8. 2001 (Ann. 6) was issued when the appointments in pursuance of the first advertisement dated 11. 9. 98 had not been made in various specialities by the University. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that she is confining her arguments only to the appointment with regard to Science subject for which there was no jurisdiction for the University for issuing a second Notification while appointment to the subjects in English, Hindi, Sanskrit and Maths had already been made to which the petitioners have no grievance. Their further case is that the petitioners were anxiously awaiting the select list and hopefully waiting for appointment on the basis of their educational qualification.
(3.) IT is not the petitioners' case that were called for interview on the basis of the first advertisement dated 11. 9. 98 though not given appointment on the post of Science Teacher Grade-II. Hence aggrieved by the second advertisement (Ann. 6), they have moved this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking the grievances inter alia that the impugned advertisement dt. 25. 8. 2001 (Ann. 6) be quashed and set aside and that the respondents be further directed to issue the merit list and to give appointments to the petitioners in pursuance of the earlier advertisement dated 11. 9. 98 (Ann. 1 ). I have heard Ms. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Akhil Simlote, learned counsel for the respondent at length and carefully perused the material available on record as also examined their rival contentions and also the legal position at issue. Prima-facie I am of the considered view that there is no vested or indefeasible right on the basis of which, the petitioners can claim appointment on the above post and the law is well settled that a candidate only has a right to be considered for appointment on a particular post subject to fulfillment of conditions which are necessary for such appointment as regards the eligibility criteria, which may be fixed by the State before the appointment is made. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioners were called for interview and they were duly interviewed by the Committee but appointment letter has not issued to them. ;