BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 21. 4. 1999 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant, who has to his credit the degree of B. A. , which he qualified in the year 1994 and also holds the degree of Bachelor of Physical Education (B. P. Ed.) since 1996 and was eligible to hold the post of Physical Education Teacher Gr. III, encadered under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1971' ). An advertisement of appointments to the posts of Teacher Gr. III in different disciplines including Teachers in Physical Education Gr. III to fill up the vacancies for 1997-1998 was issued by the District Education Officer (Boys), Barmer. For belonged to General Category and rest to the Reserved Categories. The appellant-petitioner, in pursuance thereof, applied for the post. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, after the selection process was over, a select list was prepared in the order of merit on 20. 6. 1997 and was forwarded to the concerned authority in which name of appellant-petitioner was empanelled at serial No. 16. By Annexure-1 dated 27. 3. 1998, appointments were offered to in all 30 candidates out of which 15 candidates belonged to general category as against the estimated 11 posts advertised. the candidates at serial No. 5 did not join in pursuance of the aforesaid order. The appellant-petitioner made a request to the appointing authority that he being next below in the order of merit at serial No. 16 and vacancy having not been filed because of non- joining of candidate at serial No. 5, his name may be considered for appointment against the available vacancy. The said request was declined inter alia on the ground that select list in which petitioner's name was found at serial No. 16 had lapsed on 31. 3. 1998 and, therefore, no appointment could be given thereafter.
(3.) THE appellant-petitioner also urged that the respondents having decided to fill up 15 vacancies from general category and respondent No. 3, who is at serial No. 5, being prima facie found guilty of misconduct by producing forged certificates in support of his candidature has otherwise rendered himself ineligible to be appointed and, therefore, if 15 persons from the select list were to be given appointment, petitioner's case fell amongst the 15 candidates in order of merit after excluding the name of Kalu Singh - respondent No. 3. It was contended that because of name of respondent No. 5 was liable to be struck off from the merit list, he was otherwise entitled to be offered appointment amongst 15 candidates in general category in order of merit. This fact about allegation of producing forged documents in support of eligibility criteria was admitted by the respondents in their return, but they stated that since, he has not joined, his name has not been removed from the list of panel. The only ground for not offering appointment to the appellant-petitioner was the expiry of select list on 31. 3. 1998. No other ground was stated for not offering appointment to the appellant-petitioner. It was also not the case of respondents that State Government had decided not to fill the post and keep it vacant in its discretion. Learned Single Judge agreed with the contention of the respondents that since select list has expired on 31. 3. 1998, as per advertisement, no appointment could be given thereafter to anyone from amongst the candidates, who name finds place in the merit list prepared by the selection committee and for this reason the writ petition was dismissed. ;