M.C. JAIN, J. — These two writ petitions raise common questions, so they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of these two writ petitions lie in a narrow compass. A number of posts including 102 posts of Lower Division Clerks (hereinafter referred to as "the L.D.Cs.") were advertised by the Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"), respondent No. 1. The petitioners applied for the posts of L.DCs. The petitioners took the selection test and both of them were qualified Subsequently, they were interviewed and they were declared successful both in the written test and the interview and they were called upon to undergo the typing test. The petitioners were successful in the typing test, as well. Out of the successful candidates, the Secretary of the Board prepared a region wise merit list of the candidates considered suitable for appointment, as required by sub-rule (5) (a) of Rule 64-I of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Markets (Market Committee Employees) Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1975 Rules"). As per the petitioners case the Secretary then proceeded to allot the candidates to the various Market Committees of the region with the direction for issuance of the appointment orders of the candidates. Both the petitioners were allotted to Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jodhpur. The name of the petitioner Smt. Kamla Pareek appears in the list of allotted candidates at No. 3, whereas the name of the petitioner Miss. Meena Kumari Dave appears in the list of allotted candidates at No. 4. The petitioners averred that the Market Committee concerned was under an obligation to proceed to make an appointment order in terms of Rule 641(6) of the 1975 Rules, but before this could be done, a telegram was received from the Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan, directing not to issue appointment orders of newly selected candidates and in case of those whose appointment orders have already been issued, no body should be taken on duty. The petitioners further averred that in case of some of the allotted candidates, the concerned Marketing Committee issued the appointment orders, as well. The petitioners referred to a case of Shri Rajendra Singh, who too was not taken on duty and who filed SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 244 of 1981. | 3. The petitioners further averred that in case of some of the allotted candidates, the concerned Marketing Committee issued the appointment orders, as well. The petitioners referred to a case of Shri Rajendra Singh, who too was not taken on duty and who filed SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 244 of 1981. | 3. The petitioners have sought a direction to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Jodhpur, to issue the orders of appointment, appointing the petitioners as L.D.Cs. The above direction is sought on the grounds stated in para 11 of the writ petitions. It was stated that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti had no option after the allotment of the petitioners to the Market Committee, but to issue the appointment orders in terms of Rule 64 1(6) (b). The failure on the part of the Market Committee to do so, was to disregard the mandatory provisions of Rule 64-1 of the Rules. It is further stated that the Rule does not vest any power in the Director of Agriculture or for that matter, even in the State Government in the matter of recruitment and appointment and so the appointment could not be declined to the petitioners. The action has also been challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires of Arts 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Besides that, a hostile discrimination has been practised inasmuch as some appointment orders had been issued by some Market Committees out of the list of the candidates allotted to those Market Committees. 4. Returns to the writ petitions have been filed by the State of Rajasthan (respondent No. 3). It was stated that selection on the posts of clerks according to law was proposed to be made by the Board and steps were taken towards that. Certain candidates took written test and after qualifying the same they were interviewed. It was admitted that the petitioners even qualified the type test. The contents of para 6 of the writ petitions were also admitted, which relates to the appearance of the names of the petitioners in the list of allotted candidates to the Market Committee The contesting respondent, howrver, pleaded that the 1975 Rules were amended by a notification issued in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 2.8.1979, by the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets (Market Committee Employees) Service (Amendment) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amendment Rules 1979"). By Rule 2 of the Amendment Rules, 1979, sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 64 were deleted and a new sub-rule (4) was inserted and by sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Amendment Rules 1979 the existing sub-rule (6) and clauses (a) and (b) were deleted and clause (c) was renumbered as sub-rule (5) It was averred that one of the modes of selection provided in clause (ii) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 64-1 was after calling for the candidates from the local employment exchange of the area. It was stated that by virtue of these Rules, the so-called selection of the petitioners, cannot be called a proper selection and besides that the petitioners have no vested rights created in their favour and the writ petitions are not maintainable. It was further stated that the 1975 Rules were further amended by Notification dated 7-6 1980 by the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets (Market Committee Employees) Service (Amendment) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amendment Rules, 1980). By Rule 10 for the word "Secretary" occurring in the first, proviso to sub-rule (1), in sub-rule (3) and in sub-rule (4), the word "Director" was substituted. In sub-rule (2) for words "the to the Secretary" the words "to the Director" were substituted. It was averred that by substitution of the word "Director in place of the word "Secretory", the authority given to the Secretary under Rule 64-1 was withdrawn and this authority was given to the Director and it was the Director, who was the competent authority to select the candidates, as contemplated under this rule. It was further averred that in view of the amendment, if the Secretary allotted any candidates to any Market Committee region was wise or otherwise, then it was illegal, although it was admitted that it was the Director, who not the Secretary. The grounds on which the action has been challenged, were denied and in reply to para 2 of the grounds it was averred that on 10 3.1981 the Deputy Secretary (Administration) in the Agriculture Department issued an order Ex R/2 in which it was stated that the selections made by the Board, have been cancelled by the State Government, as the selections were made by the Headquarter for all the Market Committees in the State of Rajasthan and not by the local Market Committees. According to the respondents, the purport of the order was that the respective Samitis were legally competent to select the candidates according to their needs and requirement in their respective regions and this order of the Government is based on the provisions contained in sub-rules (14) and (15) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 1963"). It was stated that the appointment of the superior officers and servants shall be made by the Market Committee subject to the approval of the Director. The powers of appointment of the superior officers vest in the respective Market Committees and not in any other authority. It was alleged that a person coming out of the same region is more useful, because of his knowledge about the local language, customs, and because of his knowledge about topography and geography of land and the like things. Under sub rules (14) and (15) of Rule 43 of the Rules 1963 the powers of the Director are only supervisory or confirmatory. The appointments of the superior officers are made by the Market Committees and the Director only comes to confirm them. It was alleged that it is clear that if sub-rules (14) and (15) of Rule 43 of the Rules, 1963, are read with Rule 64 or the 1975 Rules along with the Amendment Rules 1979, the legal position, which emerges, is that it is the Market Committees, which will select or choose the superior officers subject to the confirmation by the Director and so the order passed by the Government in March 1981 is in consonance of the spirit of Rule 43 of the Rules, 1963. It was stated that the petitioners have no right to be appointed and further issuing of the letter to some of the persons in the list does not give a right to the petitioners to claim the relief. However, it is submitted that the appointment orders issued in favour of one or two persons, have already been revoked Some pleas were also taken as "additional pleas", but it is not necessary to refer to them. 5. A rejoinder to the reply has also been filed by the petitioners, in which the stand taken by the petitioners, has been reiterated and the stand taken by the respondents, has been refuted. 6. I have heard Mr. 5. A rejoinder to the reply has also been filed by the petitioners, in which the stand taken by the petitioners, has been reiterated and the stand taken by the respondents, has been refuted. 6. I have heard Mr. M. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri M. D. Purohit, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of Rajasthan (respondent No. 3). 7. Before referring to the respective contentions of both the sides, it is essentia! to read the relevant rules of the Rules, 1963, and the 1975 Rules, as amended by the Amendment Rules, 1979, and by the Amendment Rules, 1980. In view of the fact the controversy between the parties centres round to the question as to which rules will be applicable for the purpose of selection in the present case. The Rules, 1963, have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 36 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Markets Act, 1961 (Rajasthan Act 38 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the 1975 Rules have also been framed by virtue of the same powers. Sec. 11 of the Act makes a provision for appointment and salaries of servants of the Market Committee. Sec. 11 runs as under:- "11. Appointment and salaries of servants of the Market Commitfee:-(1) The Market Committee may employ in the prescribed manner such officers and servants as may be necessary for the management of the market and may pay such officers and servants such salaries as the Market Committee thinkes fit. (2) The Market Committee shall, in the case of any officer or servant of Government whom it employs, pay such pension contribution, gratuity or leave allowance as may be required by the conditions of his service under the State Government for the time being in force. (3) The Market Committee may also, in the case of any of its officers and servants, provide for the payment to them of such leave allowances, pensions or gratuities as it deems proper and may contribute to any provident fund which may be established for the benefit of such officers and servants. (3) The Market Committee may also, in the case of any of its officers and servants, provide for the payment to them of such leave allowances, pensions or gratuities as it deems proper and may contribute to any provident fund which may be established for the benefit of such officers and servants. (4) The powers conferred by this section on the Market Committee shall be exercised subject to any rules which may be made in this behalf by the State Government." It would appear from the provision contained in sub-section (1) of Sec. 11 of the Act that the Market Committee may employ officers and servants in the prescribed manner and the word "prescribed" has been defined under clause (xii) of Sec. 2 of the Act, which means prescribed by rules under Section 36. The matters relating to service would further be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) to (4) of Sec. 11 and sub-section (4) of Sec. 11 clearly lays down that the powers conferred by the section on the Market Committee shall be exercised subject to any rules which may be made in this behalf by the State Government. Sec. 36 of the Act confers rule making powers to the State Government. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 36 is a general provision and under sub-sec. (2) certain matters have been specified in respect of which rules may be framed. Clause (t) of sub-section (2) of Sec. 36 of the Act provides the matter on which rules can be framed "as any matter which, by any provision of this Act, may be or is required to be prescribed or for which by such provision rules may be or are required to be made", and clause (u) relates to matters generally for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the Act. So in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 36 (1) as well as sub-sections (2) (t) and (u) the State Government framed the Rules, 1963 and thereafter the 1975 Rules. 8. Rule 43 of the Rules, 1963 deals with servants of the Market Committee. This rule is divided into two parts (A) and (B) and part (B) deals with the powers and functions of the Secretary. Clauses (13). 8. Rule 43 of the Rules, 1963 deals with servants of the Market Committee. This rule is divided into two parts (A) and (B) and part (B) deals with the powers and functions of the Secretary. Clauses (13). (14), (15) and (16) of part (B) of Sec. 43 are relevant for our purposes, which are reproduced hereunder:- "43 Servants of the Market Committee — (A) xx xx xxx xx xx xx (B) Powers and functions of the Secretary:- (13) Besides a Secretary, the Market Committee may empoly such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient execution of its duties. Such officers and servants shall be divided into two classes— (a) Superior Officers and Servants, and (b) Inferior Servants. Superior Officers and servants shall be the Assistant Secretary, Accounts, Treasurars, Supervisers Qanungos, Clerks and such officers and servants as the Director may determine besides a Secretary. The inferior servants shall be peons, watchman and other menial servants. (14) The terms and conditions of the Superior Officers and servants shall be such as are approved by the Director and those of the inferior servants shall be such as the Market Committee itself may decide. (15) The appointment of Superior Officers and servants shall be made by the Market Committee subject to the approval of the Director. Any punishment, revision in pay or terms of service or dismissal of the Superior Officers and servants shall also be subject to the approval of the Director. All inferior servants shall be under the full control of the Market Committee but the Committee shall make an immediate report to the Director in regard to their appointment, pay, punishment, dismissal and other matters relating to such servants. (16) The Director may by order in writing delegate any of his powers and duties under this rule to any of his subordinate officers subject to such conditions as he thinks fit." 9. Clause (13) empowers the Secretary of the Market Committee to employ such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient execution of the duties. The officers and servants have been divided into two classes, (a) Superior Officers and servants and (b) inferior servants. In the first category the Assistant, Secretary, Accounts, Treasurers, Supervisers, Qanungoes, Clerks and such officers servants as the Director may determine, shall fall. The officers and servants have been divided into two classes, (a) Superior Officers and servants and (b) inferior servants. In the first category the Assistant, Secretary, Accounts, Treasurers, Supervisers, Qanungoes, Clerks and such officers servants as the Director may determine, shall fall. The inferior servants shall be peons, watchman and other menial servants. Clause (14) confers powers on the Director power to approve the terms and conditions of the superior officers and servants and it confers powers on the Market Committee to determine the terms and conditions of the inferior servants. Clause (15) provides that the appointment of superior officers and servants shall be made by the Market Committee subject to the approval of the Director and for any punishment, revision in pay or terms of service or dismissal of the Superior Officers and servants, it is provided that it will be subject to the approval of the Director. Thus, it would appear that the authority to make appointment of Superior Officers and servants vests in the Secretary subject to the approval of the Director and the terms and conditions of their service are to be approved by the Director. Rule 64-I of the 1975 Rules is the most material rule in these cases, which provides for method of recruitment for superior posts, which reads as under:- "64-I. Method of recruitment for superior posts.-(1) Recruitment to the Service, after the commencement of these Rules, shall be made by the following methods:- (i) By direct recruitment; (ii) By promotion; (iii) By deputation from State Government: Provided that if the Director, or any authority, authorised in this respect, is satisfied that suitable persons are not available for appointment by either method of recruitment in a particular year appointment by either method, in relaxation of the prescribed proportion, may be made in the same manner as specified in these Rules: Provided further that the persons, who have continuously held post on temporary basis in the service for a period of not less then 6 months on 1.1. 1975 shall be screened by the Selection Board referred to in Rule 65 (i) for adjudging their suitability to the posts held on 1.1.1975, provided they possess the qualifications prescribed in the Rules either for direct recruitment or for promotion on the basis of which persons were selected for ad-hoc/temporary appointment. 1975 shall be screened by the Selection Board referred to in Rule 65 (i) for adjudging their suitability to the posts held on 1.1.1975, provided they possess the qualifications prescribed in the Rules either for direct recruitment or for promotion on the basis of which persons were selected for ad-hoc/temporary appointment. (2) The Secretary of the Market Committee concerned will submit at the beginning of every year a statement of existing vacancies in each grade under different categories including vacancies likely to fall vacant during the year, to the Director or to any officer authorised by him. (3) On receipt of a requisition for direct recruitment to the service, applications shall be invited by the Director, or any officer authorised by him, by advertising the vacancies in such manner as be may deem fit. (4) Notwithstanding any thing contained in the foregoing provisions, the recruitment shall be made by the Director or any officer authorised by him by either of the following methods as he may deem fit:- (i) by selecting the candidates after advertising the posts in daily news paper, or (ii) by selecting the candidates after calling for the candidates from the local employment exchange of the area. (5) All appointments to the inferior posts shall be made by the Market Committee." 10. For the purpose of these writ petitions sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 64-I are relevant. Under sub-rule (2) the Secretary of the Market Committee is required to submit a statement of existing vacancies every year in each grade under different categories including vacancies likely to fall vacant in that year, to the Director or to any officer authorised by him. On receipt of requisition for direct recruitment, the Director or any officer authorised by him, is required to invite applications after advertising the vacancies in such manner as he may deem fit. After inviting the applications the Director has to follow any of the two methods provided under sub-rule (4) for selection. Under sub-rule (4) the recruitment is required to be made by the Director. It is not in dispute in these cases that the recruitment was made by the Director and prior to the substitution of the word "Director" in place of the word "Secretary" by the Amendment Rule, 1980 action was taken by the Secretary. 11. Under sub-rule (4) the recruitment is required to be made by the Director. It is not in dispute in these cases that the recruitment was made by the Director and prior to the substitution of the word "Director" in place of the word "Secretary" by the Amendment Rule, 1980 action was taken by the Secretary. 11. Having given the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, I now proceed to consider the respective contentions of both the parties. 12. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that selections having been made under sub-rule (4) of Rule 64-I of the 1975 Rules for recruitment and the names having been communicated of the recruiters to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti"). the only thing left to be done by the Samiti was to issue a appointment letter of the petitioners. The cancellation of the selections made in pursuance of the Government letter Annexure P/2 dated 10-3-1981 was not warranted Mr. Mridul, emphasised that so far as making of selections for recruitment are concerned, the 1975 Rules will have application and the 1975 Rules will prevail over the Rules, 1963. By the 1975 Rules, the procedure for selection or method of selection has been specified and it has also* been specified as to who will be competent to make selection for recruitment, though the authority to make appointment vests in the Market Committee. Mr Mridul submitted that previously under the Rules 1963, Market Committee was competent to make appointment, but the appointment was subject to the confirmation by the Director, under sub-rule (15) of Rule 43. Mr. Mridul refuted the contention, as put forward in the returns by the respondents and submitted that so far as the method of selection and power of recruitment is concerned the 1975 Rules will govern the matter. 13. Mr. M.D. Purohit, learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the Rules, 1963, and the 1975 Rules both can co-exist. The 1975 Rules only supplement the Rules, 1963. The Rules, 1963. have not been repealed or superseded by the 1975 Rules. The two rules should be read together and there is no disharmony between them, if they are so read together. Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the Rules, 1963, and the 1975 Rules both can co-exist. The 1975 Rules only supplement the Rules, 1963. The Rules, 1963. have not been repealed or superseded by the 1975 Rules. The two rules should be read together and there is no disharmony between them, if they are so read together. The authority to make appointment is conferred on the Market Committees even under Sec. 11 of the Act, but the Market Committees are required to employ officers and servants in the prescribed manner and this power has to be exercised subject to the Rules which are made in this behalf by the State Government. It would appear from the provisions contained in Sec. 11 that though the power is conferred on the Market Committees for making appointments of officers and servants, but that power is subject to the Rules, which are framed in this behalf. Under the Rules, 1963, clause (13) of part (B) of Rule 43 confers the powers on the Secretary of the Market Committee to employ officers and servants subject to the terms and conditions, which may be approved by the Director. So it would appear that the power of employing officers and servants under the Rules was conferred on the Secretary of the Market Committee. So it would appear that the power of employing officers and servants under the Rules was conferred on the Secretary of the Market Committee. I need not consider here the clauses of officers and the servants given in clause (13) of part (B) of Rule 43 of the Rules, 1963, because in these writ petitions I am concerned only with L.D.Cs., which fall in the class (a) consisting of superior officers and servants Shri Purohit submitted that when power to employ has been conferred on the Market Committee or for that on the Secretary of the Market Committee, then it should be taken that the initially the selection should be made by the Market Committee or by the Secretary of the Market Committee and for confirmation, the Market Committee may send the names to the Director and in this process of confirmation, the Director will resort to sub rule (4) of Rule 64-I for final recruitment, which may be made by the Director under sub-rule (4) He give the rationable of this particular procedure or method for selection that the Market Committee would draw incumbents from the local area, who will have requisite knowledge of the local language, customs, usages, dialects, topography, and geography of land and the like things of the area. If the power of the selection is not given to the Market Committee, then the incumbents would be imposed from above and the rationable behind the provision contained in the Act and the Rules, 1963, would fail and would be defeated. Emphasis was placed by Shri Purohit on the second method of selection given under sub-rule (2) of Rule 64 I. The second method is by selecting the candidates after calling of the candidates from the local employment exchange of the area. He submitted that if the candidates are called from the Local employment exchange of the area, they will be from the area of the Market Committee and so the object of such recruitment would be fulfilled. It is in this context, he referred Government Order Ex. R/2 and submitted that the selections were cancelled, because the selections were not made by the Market Committees, but were made by the Headquarters, that is, by the Director. 14. Having given my anxious and earnest consideration to the above submissions of Mr. It is in this context, he referred Government Order Ex. R/2 and submitted that the selections were cancelled, because the selections were not made by the Market Committees, but were made by the Headquarters, that is, by the Director. 14. Having given my anxious and earnest consideration to the above submissions of Mr. Purohit, learned Additional Government Advocate, I may state that I do not feel persuaded by these submissions. In my opinion there is no basis for making these submissions in view of the clear provisions under the 1975 Rules. There is no denying the fact and it cannot be denied that the power to make appointment vests in the Market Committee. Such a power is conferred under the provisions of Sec. 11 of the Act itself, but this power has been subjected the Rules, which may be framed by the State Government. By the Rules, 1963, the power of selection and there-after to employ continue, to vest in the Secretary of the Market Committee subject to the approval of the Director, but in my opinion, after the enforcing of the 1975 Rules, this power of selection ceased to vest in the Market Committee. To me it is so obvious, apparent and clear that by Rule 64 I, not only the two alternative methods for recruitment are provided, but it is further provided that any one of these methods of recruitment to be adopted by the Director after the Amendment Rules, 1980, and before that the Secretary of the Board was required to act under sub-rules (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Rule 64-I, as then stood. If the unamended 1975 Rules are taken into consideration, then the scheme appears to be that after the sending of the statement of existing vacancies, the applications were required to be invited by the Secretary and after scrutiny of the applications, the Secretary was required to conduct the written test and thereafter call the candidates for interview, who have passed the written test and after interview shall select the persons who stand higher in the order of merit and there after he was required to prepare a region wise merit list and then to allot the requisite number of selected candidates to the Market Committees with the direction to issue their appointment orders. By the Amendment Rules 1979. By the Amendment Rules 1979. sub-rules (4), (5) and (6) have been deleted and the power of recruitment has been conferred on the Secretary of the Board by following either of the two methods. I need not go into this question as to wether it was proper on the part of the Secretary to hold the written test and the interview and the typing test. It appears that ultimately it was the Director, who made the recruitment and which he could do after coming into force of the Amendment Rules, 1980. Under the 1975 Rules, no initial selection is required to be made by the Secretary of the Market Committee, nor any confirmation is required to be obtained, as was necessary under the Rules, 1963. The power to employ continues to vest in the Market Committee. The power to make selection and the method of making selection or recruitment would be in accordance with the 1975 Rules and to that extent, in my opinion, the Rules, 1963, will have no application and if I may say so, the Rules, 1963, to this limited extent stand impliedly repealed. Under the Rules, 1963, the Secretary was free to make selection in any manner, he may like, but this cannot be done after the 1975 Rules. Rather the power of selection does not remain with him. Similarly the question of confirmation will not arise. Thus, clauses (13) and (15) of part (B) of Rule 43 of the Rules, 1963, cannot now be pressed into service, as they will have no application and clause (14) too will have no application in view of the fact that the 1975 Rules make elaborate provisions for pay and additions to pay, joining time, leave, medical facilities, allowances, liveries and other facilities, transfers, seniority and disciplinary action. The terms and conditions of service of superior officers, in face of the 1975 Rules, require no approval of the Director. Thus, the clauses 1(13), (14) and (15) of Part (B) of Rule 43 of the Rules, 1963, ceased to have force after the coming into force of the 1975 Rules to the extent of the matters that are governed by the 1975 Rules, The legislative intent behind the 1975Rules clearly appears to be that the power of selection should not be left with the Market Committees. It should be taken from their hands and it is conferred on the Director. It should be taken from their hands and it is conferred on the Director. If the intention was that the power of selection should continue to vest in the Market Committee, then in my opinion, such an intention has not been carried out in Rule 64-I, as has been framed. The framed rule 64-I, in my opinion, clearly goes to indicate that the Secretary of the Market Committee is only required to send the statements of the existing vacancies and thereafter the whole process of selection by adopting any of the two methods, is to be under taken at the level of the Director. It is true that after the amendment of the Rules in 1979, there is no provision as to how the Secretary, and after the Amendment Rules, 1980, how the director should act, as there is no provision of preparation of the region-wise merit list and there is no provision for allotment of candidates to the Market Committees, but in my opinion, these functions and duties are implicit under sub-rule (4), otherwise the action of making of recruitment would be reduced to a superfluous formality, if after making recruitment candidates are not allotted to the Market Committees for appointment. 15. In the light of the above discussion, in my opinion, there was no warrant in law for cancellation of the selection made by the Director for recruitment by the Government vide Annexure P/2 dated 10-3-1981 and I find no force, whatsoever, in the contention of Mr. Purohit, learned Additional Government Advocate, that the power of initial selection continues to vest in the Market Committee despite the 1975 Rules. 16. Mr. Purohit, learned Additional Government Advocate, next contended that the mere fact that the petitioners names appear in the list of selected candidates,that does not confer any right on the petitioners to be appointed. The petitioners have no right of appointment as such. Reliance was placed by Shri Purohit on a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha (1). 17. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that this Supreme Court decision is distinguishable in as much as that in that case a list was prepared for making further selection for appointment and while making further selection for appointment, the Govt. 17. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that this Supreme Court decision is distinguishable in as much as that in that case a list was prepared for making further selection for appointment and while making further selection for appointment, the Govt. laid down a different criterion, which was within its competence, so considering that aspect the Supreme Court observed that mere entry in the list of the name of a candidate does not give him the right to be appointed. In such a case the candidates, even the first in the list, will not have a right to be appointed. The list is merely to help the State Government in making the appointments showing which candidates have the minimum qualifications under the Rules. The stage for selection for appointment comes thereafter, Mr. Mridul submitted that the position in the present case is quite different. Here the final list for recruitment has been prepared and the petitioners have been allotted to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur. What remains to be done is only to issue the letters for appointment and no further selection for appointment was to be made, as was the case in the Supreme Court decision. Mri. Mridul maintained that if the reason for cancdella-tion of selection fails, then there is on escape for the respondent No. 2, but to make the appointment of the petitioners. Mr. Mridul cited the decisions in Dr. A.V. Venkata Ratnam v. The Chancellor, University of Mysore (2), S.Krishna Murthy v. The General Manager, Southern Railway (3), The Distt. Registrar, Palghat v. M.B. Koyyakutty (4) and The State of Maharashtra v. Association of Maharashtra Education Service Class II Officers (5). 18. The question that arises now in the present case is as to whether the petitioners have a right to be appointed as L.D.Cs. in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur ? It is true that this Court cannot issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioners, but this Court can certainly direct the concerned authorities to fulfil their obligations, which are enjoined on them under the law. If the petitioners have been selected and recruited by the Director in accordance with law and if their names have been conveyed for being appointed and if the vacancies are to be filled in, then it is enjoined on the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur, to issue appointment letters to the petitioners. If the petitioners have been selected and recruited by the Director in accordance with law and if their names have been conveyed for being appointed and if the vacancies are to be filled in, then it is enjoined on the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur, to issue appointment letters to the petitioners. When the reasons for not giving appointments to the petitioners, have failed and the selections have been held to be valid, then the only course open to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur, is to give appointments, unless for financial or other administrative reasons, the appointment can be legitimately with held. But where vacancies have to be filled up, then in that case, there is no other course open to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur, except to give appointments to the petitioners. 19. The case State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) has been rightly distinguished by Shri Mridul. In that case under Rule 10 (ii) Part C of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules (as adopted by Haryana), the stage for selection for appointment came up only after preparation of the list of candidates, who fulfil the minimum qualifications. The contention that Rule 8 of Part C was contravened, was negatived and it was observed that Rule 8 is a step in the preparation of a list of eligible candidates with minimum qualifications who may be considered for appointment, It was further observed that that is why Rule 10 (ii), Part C speaks of selection for appointment." it was further observed that even as there is no constraint on the State Government in respect of the number of appointment to be made, there is no constraint on the Government fixing a higher score of marks for the purpose of selection. In a case where appointments are made by selection from a number of eligible candidates, it is open to the Government with a view to maintain high-standards of competence to fix a score which is much higher than the one required for mere eligibility. Thus, this authority is of no assistance to the learned Additional Government Advocate. 20. In Dr. A.V. Venkata Ratnam V. Chancellor, University of Mysore (supra) the question was with regard to a right to be appointed to the post after the person was duly selected by the Board. Thus, this authority is of no assistance to the learned Additional Government Advocate. 20. In Dr. A.V. Venkata Ratnam V. Chancellor, University of Mysore (supra) the question was with regard to a right to be appointed to the post after the person was duly selected by the Board. The provision contained in Sec. 49 (6) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, was under consideration. Sub section (6) of Sec. 49 provided that the Board shall interview, adjudge the merit of each candidate in accordance with the qualifications advertised and prepare a list of persons selected arranged in the order of merit. It shall forward the list to the chancellor who shall make appointments in accordance with the same. It was held that in the absence of any procedural illegality, or want of qualification or existence of disqualification in the selected candidate, S. 49 (6) of the Act creates a right in favour of a candidate selected by the Board to be appointed and a corresponding duty on the part of the chancellor to appoint a candidate selected, for the post for which the appointment was intended. It was also observed that the language of Sec. 49(6) indicates that the selection made by the Board is final and binding on the appointing authority, and is not merely recommendatory. It was also observed that there is no reason to cut down the effect of the imperative language designedly used by the Legislature in Sec. 49 (6) of the Act. 21. In S. Krishnamurthy v. The General Manager, Southern Railway (supra) the Court gave the direction that the Railway Administration shall appoint the appellant as Traffic Inspector with effect from December 20,1967. 22. In the Distt. Registrar, Palghat V.M.B. Koyyakutty (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court approved the action of the High Court to issue a positive direction requiring the Government to promote the respondent Koyyakutty to the Upper Division and thereafter to determine his rank in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks. These authorities show that a positive direction can be given either to give appointment or to effect a promotion. 23. In the State of Maharashtra v. Association of Maharashtra Education Service Class II Officers (supra) the Report of the University Grants Commission was accepted by the Central Government. These authorities show that a positive direction can be given either to give appointment or to effect a promotion. 23. In the State of Maharashtra v. Association of Maharashtra Education Service Class II Officers (supra) the Report of the University Grants Commission was accepted by the Central Government. Under a proposal to the Government of Maharashtra the Central Government undertook to bear 80 per cent of the expenditure incurred by the University or the Colleges for implementing the Scheme for five years. The proposal was accepted by the State. However, the State Government made it a pre-condition that the incumbents must appear before the Public Service Commission before they were given the higher pay scales. It was held that it was not right on the part of the State Government to depart from the rudiments of that Scheme and to devise a new mechanism entailing the imposition of fresh conditions as a pre-requisite to eligibility for the higher pay-scaled. As the imposition of such a condition being based on a misunderstanding of the Scheme proposed by the High Court was right in directing the State Government to place the eligible persons in the pay scale under the Scheme Without asking them to appear before the Public Service Commission. Thus, a positive direction was given to the State Government to place the eligible persons in the pay-scale under the Scheme. 24. In the present cases when the petitioners have been selected for recruitment, a direction can be given to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur, to proceed to make the appointments of the petitioners, if the vacancies are to be filled up. 25. No other point has been pressed before me. 26. In view of what I have discussed above, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 27. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2), is directed to proceed to make appointments of the petitioners on the posts of Lower Division Clerks. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of the writ petitions.