JUDGMENT 1. These two special appeals preferred by the appellants under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the orders passed in Civil writ petition No. 1201 of 1972. dated 25/2/11975 and, in Civil writ petition No. 62 of 1978 dated 2/7/1980, by the learned Single ,Judges of this Court. Since these two appeals were argued and heard together and the facts are also similar, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The appellant was appointed by direct recruitment to the post of Head of Mechanical Engineering Department in Polytechnic of Rajasthan, in September 1959. Thereafter, he was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to the post of Deputy Director Training in the Directorate of Technical Education in the pay scale of 650-1250, on a salary of Rs. 750/- per month on one years probation. He took charge of this post on 23/11/63. But the Government by its order dated 27/2/1964 treated this appointment as temporary. In 1964, the appellant was assigned the work of implementation of apprenticeship and, he was designated as Deputy Director Training-cum-Deputy Director Apprenticeship Advisor. The appellant was later on appointed as Deputy State Apprenticeship Advisor-cum-Deputy Director of Training on 30.12.1967. According to the appellant, there were two wings in the Dectorate of Technical Education, which was headed by the Director of 'Technical Education and there were two posts of Deputy Directors-one was designated as Deputy Director of Training and the other as Deputy Director of Technical Education. The Government later on decided to merge the two wings and the post of Deputy Director of 'Technic if Education was up-graded, as it was considered to be senior post and manned by a senior person. One Shri S. P. Dutta was appointed as joint Director of Technical Education who was next to the Direct for of Technical Education and under him was We Deputy Director of Training. Shri S P. Dutta resigned from the post of Joint Director Technical Education and, Shri B K.Jain, respondent No. 5, who was senior-most Principal, Poly-technic was appointed as Director of Technical Education on temporary basis. Shri S P. Dutta resigned from the post of Joint Director Technical Education and, Shri B K.Jain, respondent No. 5, who was senior-most Principal, Poly-technic was appointed as Director of Technical Education on temporary basis. The appellant filed writ petition No. 127 of 1975, challenging the appointment of Shri B. K. Jain to the post of Director of Technical Education and seeking a further direction to make the appointment to the post of Director of Technical Education after considering the case of the petitioner who was eligible for the said post and. further prayed for a direction to absorb the appellant in accordance with provision of Rajasthan Civil Services Absorption of Surplus Personnel Rules, 1909. The said writ petition was admitted for hearing and reply to the same was filed jointly by the State of Rajasthan and Shri B K. Jain. A rejoinder to the reply was also filed by the petitioner. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed by Hon'ble Kan Singh, J., by his order dated 25/2/1975. 3. The appellant filed it review petition against the said order of Hon'ble Kan Singh J. which was also admitted and registered as S. B. Civil Review petition No. 7 of 1975, but the same was also dismissed on 30/8/1975. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this Special Appeal No. 125 of 1975. 4. Shri B.K. Jain retired in the end of December 1974, and the Government did not give chance to the appellant and appointed Shri R. K. Chowdhary as Director of Technical Education who continued on adhoc basis for six months. Thereafter Shri S. N. Goel was appointed as Director of Technical Education on adhoc basis During the pendency of the appeal DPC was again held to consider the appointment for the post of Director of Technical Education, which recommended the name of Shri S N. Goel for appointment as Director of Technical Education and, consequently, he was appointed by order dated 30.6.1976. The appellant filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, which was dismissed by the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 16.5.1977. The petitioner preferred a review petition before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed on 15.7.1977. The appellant filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, which was dismissed by the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 16.5.1977. The petitioner preferred a review petition before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed on 15.7.1977. Thereafter, the appellant filed the Writ Petition No. 62 of 1978, seeking to quash the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, challenging the appointment and confirmation of Shri S. N. Goel on the post of Director, Technical Education and further that the petitioner should he appointed as Director of Technical Education being senior to Shri S.N. Goel and the petitioner should he given the same benefits as given to Shri S.P. Dutta. Along with the writ petition No. 62 of 1978, the appellant also filed an application for amendment of the earlier writ petition. The writ petition remained pending for admission for a pretty long time and was ultimately dismissed summarily by Hon'ble D. P. Gupta J., by his order dated 2. 7.1980 and it was observed that the petitioner had been appointed as officiating Director of Technical Education Rajasthan and, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous and hence, dismissed. Against that order a special appeal was filed which has been registered as Special Appeal No. 240 of 1980. These two appeals came up for hearing on 12.11.1982 when the learned counsel for the appellant submitted - i ten argument. The learned Addl. Government Advocate Mst. Kamala Jain sought time to study the written arguments and thereafter when the case again came up for hearing on 5.1.1982, she also submitted written arguments and thereafter the judgment was reserved. 5. We have gone through the arguments submitted by the parties and have also perused the record of the two appeals. 6. The appellant has contended that his Writ Petition No. 120/1972, was dismissed without considering the points raised therein and his prayer made in para I of the rejoinder was not at all considered and the learned Single judge ought to have considered the rejoinder and granted the prayer mentioned therein and the review was also dismissed without giving any reasons whatsoever. 7. 7. We have carefully gone through the judgment of justice Kan Single and did not find any error therein, Shri B. K. Jain, whose appointment was sought to be quashed in the earlier writ petition, had retired before the judgment was made in the writ petition and the petitioner had already been fixed consequent to his being declared surplus in accordance with the. Absorption Rules. The post from which the petitioner was declared surplus in the post to which he was appointed on absorption carried the same pay scale and were thus equivalent equated post. The orders were in accordance with the rules framed by the Governor in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. No declaratory relief to the petitioner could have been granted in the facts and circumstances of the case as there was no such prayer and the writ petition was not amended. A mere mention in the re joinder does not entitle the petitioner to seek relief. It was futile to go into the question whether Shri B. K. Jain was validly appointed, or not as he had retired before the iudgment was pronounced, and the prayer drat the petitioner ought to have considered for the post from the date Shri B. K. Jain was appointed could not be considered, or granted and, could not have been given a declaration that the petitioner should he deemed to have been promoted as Director of Technical Education from the date Shri B. K. Jain was appointed. There are no special circumstances warranting any such relief. The rules had been made by the Gov rnnicnt and also amended during the pendency of the writ petition and the petitioner's case will be considered for furture appointment in accordance with the rules. In the written arguments also the appellant has not shown any ground on which the judgment of the learned Single Judge Kan Singh J. could be questioned, except that his prayer in the rejoinder was not granted. We have already observed that unless the subsequent facts which have happened during the pendency of the writ petition are incorporated in the writ petition itself by an amendment. Mere mentioning them in the rejoinder will not give any right to the petitioner to claim such relief. We have already observed that unless the subsequent facts which have happened during the pendency of the writ petition are incorporated in the writ petition itself by an amendment. Mere mentioning them in the rejoinder will not give any right to the petitioner to claim such relief. We see no reason to interfere with rite judgment of the learned Single judge dismissing the earlier writ petition No. 1201 of 1972. 8. The second writ petition No. 62 of 1978, was also dismissed by Hon'ble D.P. Gupta, J. as the same has become infructucus. Since the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition had been promoted as officiating Director of Technical Education, Rajasthan, which was the main relief in that writ petition. If the petitioner had any other grievance for his future appointment, or wanted to seek any other relief, he ought to have filed a separate writ petition. There are no allegations of mala fide in either of the writ petition and in fact, there could be none, as in spite of pendency of the writ petition he was promoted as Director of Technical Education and he was also sent abroad to work with UNESCO and if he was apprehending his reversion to the post of Deputy Director on his return from abroad he could have filed another writ petition, if he was its aggrieved by any such order. Merely because he proceeded on leave and is expecting that some orders may be passed detriment to his interest, no relief Call be granted in these special appeals. As and when any adverse order is passed against the appellant he will be free to question the same before an appropriate authority and, no such benefit, as mentioned in the written arguments, can be given to the appellant in the present appeals. The appellant can only claim that he should be dealt with in accordance with rules and cannot claim that the benefits given to any other individual could also be granted to him and, this Court cannot order that the benefits as given to Shri S P. Dutta should be given to the appellant, or that amendment should be nude in the Rajasthan Technical Services Rules by giving the appellant special status and putting him on a post senior than the Principal, Polytechnic. 9. 9. In this view of the matter, we hereby dismiss both the appeals, but, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. *******