JUDGMENT 1. - The three above numbered special appeals arise out of the order dated December 20, 1985 of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge under the aforesaid order disposed of three S.B. Civil Writ Petitions. No. 1300/1984 (Dr. Suresh Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan and others) , No.1768/1984 (Dr. Kalpna Srivastava v. State of Rajasthan and others) and No. 1216/1985 (Dr. Mahaveer Singh Nathawat v. State of Rajasthan and others) . Out of the above three S.B. Civil Writ Petitions, the learned Single Judge dismissed the two writ petitions (Nos. 1300/1984 and 1768/1984) but S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1236/1985 was allowed in part and the respondents to that writ petition were directed to invite applications from SC/ST candidates to fill in one post of Registrar in the speciality of Radio Diagnosis. A further direction was issued that in case SC/ST candidate is not available, then the respondents will invite applications afresh from all the candidates in the general category and make an appointment on the basis of merit alone according to the guidelines. 2. Firstly the relevant facts may be stated. Various vacancies of Resident House Officers under three years residency scheme for the year 1983 in various Specialities including Radio Diagnosis Skin and v. D., Gynaecology and Obstetrics (for short, Gyn. & Obst.) were advertised. One Dr. Manjula Duggar was selected and appointed as Resident House Officer in Gyn. & Obst. under three years scheme in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur but she resigned from the said post on September 30, 1983. Asa result of the resignation of Dr. Manjula Dug gar, one post of Reg soar in the speciality of Gyn. & Obst. became available, but the vacancy was not advertised and in the month of March, 1984 two applications for appointment on that post were received, one from Dr. Rekha Jain, who was already working as Registrar under three years residency scheme in the speciality of Gyn. & Obst. at Medical College, Jodhpur and another from Dr. Kalpna Srivastava. Dr. Kalpna Srivastava having done her M. B. B. S. from S M S. Medical College Jaipur was entitled to the weightage of 5% of marks as per the guidelines for selection and appointment of the Regisdents issued vide letter dated November 26, 1981 from the Dy Secretary to the Government, Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur Dr. Dr. Kalpna Srivastava having done her M. B. B. S. from S M S. Medical College Jaipur was entitled to the weightage of 5% of marks as per the guidelines for selection and appointment of the Regisdents issued vide letter dated November 26, 1981 from the Dy Secretary to the Government, Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur Dr. Kalpna Srivastava had done her house job with effect from February 8, 1983 to August 14, 1983 at Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital Jaipur. The said house job was recognised by the University of Rajasthan From August 16, 1983 to February 15, 1984 she did her house job in Gyn. & Obst. from Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi. This house job was also recognised. She was thus entitled for appointment as Registrar. The Principal. S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur issued an order on March 19, 1984 appointing Dr.Rekha Jain a Medical Graduate from S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur on the post of Registrar in the S.M.S Medical College, Jaipur. In pursuance of the above order said Dr.Rekha Jain was registered on May 2, 1984 for post of Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. in S.M.S. Medical College Jaipur. Dr. Kalpna Srivastava made representation on the ground that she had an effective percentage of 69.30 whereas Dr. Rekha Jain was having an effective percentage of 60 66. Thus she stood much higher in merit than Dr. Rekha Jain and was illegally denied appointment on the post of Registrar. Ultimately, her representation to the Union Health Minister and to the Government of Rajasthan bore fruit. After calling for the explanation from the Principal, S. M. S. ,Medical College. Jaipur as to why Dr. Kalpana Srivastava had not been admitted in M. S. course, the Government of of Rajasthan vide letter dated August 3, 1984 directed the Principal. S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur that Kalpna Srivastava be admitted as Registrar in Gynaecology. bit in case there is no vacancy in this speciality, the Principal was advised to consider adjusting her elsewhere. Thereafter on September 11, 1984, the Principal S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur registered Dr. Kalpna Srivastava for the course of M. S. in Gyn. & Obst. vide Annr. 7. Aggrieved against the appointments of Dr. Rekha Jain and Dr. Kalpna Srivastava as Registrars in S.M S. Medical College in the speciality of Gyn. & Obst. one Dr. Thereafter on September 11, 1984, the Principal S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur registered Dr. Kalpna Srivastava for the course of M. S. in Gyn. & Obst. vide Annr. 7. Aggrieved against the appointments of Dr. Rekha Jain and Dr. Kalpna Srivastava as Registrars in S.M S. Medical College in the speciality of Gyn. & Obst. one Dr. Sarita Bhateja filed writ petition (No. 140/1984) in this Court, but later on Dr. Bhateja did not press her petition against Dr. Rekha Jain and only contested the Selection ;end appointment of Dr. Kalpna Srivastava to the post of Registrar. Hon'ble Sidhu J. (as he then was) on December 7, 1984 allowed that writ petition and quashed the appointment of Dr. Kalpana Srivastava. Thereafter, Dr. Kalpna Srivastava filed S. B Civil Writ Petition No. 1768/1984 in this court praying therein that the orders dated March 19, 1984, May 2, 1984 appointing Dr. Rekha Jain be declared to be unconstitutional and respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to treat her as registered in Gyn. & Obs with effect from March 19, 1984 and grant her registration with effect from May 2, 1984. 3. One Har Sahai Meena was selected and appointed as Resident in Skin & v. D. but he left the post immediately after his appointment. The post being a reserved post. one Ashok Mehrada, who had earlier been selected and appointed as Resident in the speciality of Radio Diagnosis was shifted to the vacancy in Skin and v. D. as a result of leaving that post by Har Sahai Meena, who was a Scheduled Tribe candidate and had been admitted against the reserved vacancy. Though, we are not presently concerned in the special appeals with the writ petition of Dr. Suresh Bhargava (No. 1300/1984), but in passing it may be observed that said Dr. Bhargava had filed writ petition on the ground that the seat of Resident House Officer in Skin and v. D. having become available on account of Harsahai Meena leaving the same and it could not have been filled in without inviting fresh applications as the seat became a general seat. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of Dr. Bhargava and Dr. Bhargava has not challenged the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge. 4. As already stated earlier, as a result of reshuffling Dr. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of Dr. Bhargava and Dr. Bhargava has not challenged the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge. 4. As already stated earlier, as a result of reshuffling Dr. Ashok Mehrada was shifted from Radio Diagnosis to Skin and V. D. and as such a vacancy had arisen in Radio Diagnosis. That vacancy was not filled and as per the case of' the respondents the post was utilised towards the posting of Registrar in the speciality of Gyn. & Obst. vide order dated August 24, 1981 by which Dr. Kalpna Srivastava was appointed as Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. Dr. Mahaveer Singh Nathawat filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1236,'1985 in this court wherein the transfer and shifting of the seat of Registrar of Radio Diagnosis speciality to the department of Gyn. & Obst. was challenged. It was prayed that the same may be quashed and Dr. Nathawat may be appointed on the post of Registrar in the department of Radio Diagnosis for which he applied in pursuance of the notification dated December 17, 1984. Said Dr. Nathawat after his M. B. B. S. and House Job did diploma in Medicinal Radio-Diagnosis in July 1984. Learned Single Judge partly allowed his writ petition and held that so far as the transfer of one scat in Radio-Diagnosis to Gyn. & Obst. is concerned, it was not in accordance with law. But he further held that the post was a reversed post and the applications should be first invited from SC/ST candidates to fill that post and in case such a candidate is not available then the post should be re-advertised as a general category post and the applications should be invited and filled in in accordance with merit. The two special appeals have been filed against partial acceptance of the writ petition No. 1236/1985 by the learned Single Judge because the result of the acceptance of that writ petition is that the transfer of one seat from Radio Diagnosis to Gyn. & Obst. has been struck down, as a result thereof the election and appointment of Dr. Anju Soni on that post becomes bad and Dr. Nathawat has been denied admission. Dr. Kalpana Srivastava has filed special appeal against the rejection of her writ petition No.1768/1984. 5. & Obst. has been struck down, as a result thereof the election and appointment of Dr. Anju Soni on that post becomes bad and Dr. Nathawat has been denied admission. Dr. Kalpana Srivastava has filed special appeal against the rejection of her writ petition No.1768/1984. 5. Before we enter into merits of the three special appeals, events subsequent to the decision of the three writ petitions by the learned Single Judge may be stated. Both Dr. Rekha Jain and Dr. Anju Soni have appeared in the final examination and have become successful. In other words, they have completed post-graduate Course and under these circumstances notwithstanding the fact as to whether their appointment on the post of Registrar in the speciality of Gyn. & Obst, was or was not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government and whether Dr. Rekha Jain could or could not be appointed with which we shall deal hereinafter, we are of the opinion that it will not be in the interest of justice now to quash their appointment. In Punjab Engineering College. Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati. AIR 1983 SC 580 , the Supreme Court while holding that the names of such of the students who were wrongly- admitted. could be removed from the roll of the institution, but did not deem it proper to do so and observed that the best solution is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admission was made. The authorities who made admissions by ignoring the rules of admission cannot it be allowed to contend that the seats cannot correspondingly be increased, since the State Government cannot meet the additional expenditure which be caused by increasing the number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope up with the additional influx of students or that in regard to Medical Colleges the Indian Medical Council will not sanction additional seats. 6. So for as Dr. (Mrs.) Anju Soni is concerned, she had applied for the post of Registrar after the vacancy was is advertised in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble Sidhu J in the writ petition filed by Dr. Sarita Bhuteja (S B Civil Writ Petition No. 1400/1984). In the aforesaid case Sidhu, J. allowed the writ petition of Dr. Bhateja and had directed that the order dated August 27, 1984 and September 11, 1984 appointing Dr. Sarita Bhuteja (S B Civil Writ Petition No. 1400/1984). In the aforesaid case Sidhu, J. allowed the writ petition of Dr. Bhateja and had directed that the order dated August 27, 1984 and September 11, 1984 appointing Dr. Kalpna Srivastava (respondent No. 5 in that writ petition) as Registrar, Gynaecology and Obstetrics in S. M. S. Medical College and her registration for M. S. degree in that subject are quashed. The vacancy shall be advertised within a period of one week and the appointments will be made on the basis of merits. Dr. (Mrs.) Anju Soni was no doubt meritoreous and as such she was selected as Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. in the aforesaid vacancy advertised. Dr. Kalpna. Srivastava did not challenge her appointment as Registrar in the writ petition No 1768 184 filed by her. Dr. (Mrs.) Anji Soni was made respondent No. 3 in his writ petition filled by Dr. Nathawat challenging the transfer of one seat from the department of Radio Diagnosis to the department of Gyn. & Obst. So far as the case of Dr Nathawat is concerned, the learned Single Judge. as already stated earlier, has dismissed his writ petition on merit., and only ordered that the vacancy should he first advertised as SC. ST vacancy and in case no such candidate of SC/ST is available only then it will be advertised as a general category. Dr. Nathawat does not stand anywhere in the merit and we agree with the learned Single Judge so far as this aspect of the case is concerned. That apart, there is no dispute that Dr. Nathawat did not submit any application in the vacancy of Radio Diagnosis which was advertised after the decision of the writ petition of Dr. Bhateja. The vacancy was not advertised as a vacancy in the department of Radio Diagnosis. Under the notice dated December 17, 1983 it was clearly provided that the vacancy was utilised towards the posting of Registrar in the speciality of Gyn. & Obst. vide order dated August 24, 1984 and Dr. Kalpna Srivastava was appointed as Registrar in Gyn. & Obst.It was also mentioned in the said notice that the appointment of Dr Kalpna Srivastava was quashed by the High Court and a direction was issued that the vacancy should be re-advertised in accordance with the guidelines. & Obst. vide order dated August 24, 1984 and Dr. Kalpna Srivastava was appointed as Registrar in Gyn. & Obst.It was also mentioned in the said notice that the appointment of Dr Kalpna Srivastava was quashed by the High Court and a direction was issued that the vacancy should be re-advertised in accordance with the guidelines. Thus, no vacancy in Radio Diagnosis was advertised and not application was invited. Dr. Nathawat of his own applied. That apart, on merits Dr. Nathawat has no case as held by the learned Single Judge. We are of the opinion that there was no valid application by Dr. Nathawat which could have been considered and the vacancy was a reserved vacancy and did not belong to general category and Dr. Nathawat being a candidate belonging to general category can have no grievance. Learned Single Judge has held that it was wrong and illegal on the part of the respondent to transfer one stipendiary post of Registrar from Radio Diagnosis to the speciality of Gya. & Obst. If a candidate resigns or shifts to another speciality, the proper course in such cases is to fill that vacancy in that speciality alone. He has also held that if Dr. Ashok Mehrada had been shifted from Radio Diagnosis to Skin & V.D. the vacancy in Radio Diagnosis should have been filed by inviting fresh applications in the speciality of Radio diagnosis. The learned Single Judge again at page 21 pars 2 held that so far as the transferring of one seat in Radio diagnosis to Gyn & Ost is concerned, in his opinion this cannot be done. We have held above that Dr. Nathawat has no case even on merits and the vacancy was of SC ST vacancy. Dr. Nathawat could no have challenged the utilisation of the post in Radio diagnosis to Gyn & Obst. So that apart, in cur opinion, this matter was no longer open and had been concluded by the decision of Hon'ble Sidhu J. in the writ petition of Dr. Bhateja (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1400/1984) decided on December 7, 1984. In the said case Dr. Bhateja had initially challenged the appointment as Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. of both Dr. (Mrs.) Anju Soni and Dr. Kalpna Srivastava. Dr. Kalpna Srivastava had been appointed as Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. after utilising the post in Radio Diagnosis. Bhateja (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1400/1984) decided on December 7, 1984. In the said case Dr. Bhateja had initially challenged the appointment as Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. of both Dr. (Mrs.) Anju Soni and Dr. Kalpna Srivastava. Dr. Kalpna Srivastava had been appointed as Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. after utilising the post in Radio Diagnosis. The stand of the Government in that case as appears from the judgment of Hon'ble Sidhu J. was that the appointment of Dr Kalpna Srivastava was made against a non-existing vacancy in Gyn. & Obst. against the existing vacancy in another speciality. Thus a look at the notice dated December 17, 1984 inviting applications for the post of Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. will show that the post of Registrar in Radio Diagnosis was utilised towards the Gyn. & Obst. vide order dated August 24, 1984. Thus it can be said that the utilisation of the post of Radio diagnosis for Gyn. & Obst. was upheld by Sidhu J. and that is why Sidhu J. while quashing the appointment of Dr. Kalpna Srivastava on the ground that the said appointment was made without inviting applications, directed that the resulting vacancy be advertised. Obviously the resulting vacancy was in Gyn. & Obst. Thus, as stated earlier, the utilisation of one seat in Radio diagnosis for Gyn. & Obst. stood concluded by the judgment of Sidhu J. and it was no longer open for the learned Single Judge while deciding the three writ petitions under his order dated December 20, 1985 to quash the utilisation of transfer of one seat of Radio diagnosis to Gyn. & Obst. That apart we are of the opinion that if various posts of Residents/Registrars/Senior Registrars are advertised in various departments of specialities and some of them remain unfilled because no application is forthcoming there should not be and cannot be any objection if the Government utilises such vacant post for some other speciality or department where there may be and is rush of candidates. Therefore, apart from the fact that the question of utilisation or transfer of the seat in Radio diagnosis to Gyn. & Obst. Therefore, apart from the fact that the question of utilisation or transfer of the seat in Radio diagnosis to Gyn. & Obst. was no longer open for consideration before the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not correct when he held that the Government could not transfer or utilise the vacancy in one speciality for the other speciality. Thus. in our opinion, the utilisation of one seat in Radio diagnosis for Gyn. & Obst. is beyond challenge and the finding of the learned Single Judge that the same was illegal is set aside. 7. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that apart from the fact that we have held above that Dr. (Mrs.) Anju Soni has appeared and passed her post graduate course and as such her appointment as Registrar should not be set aside. we are of the opinion that even on merits her selection and appointment as Registrar in the vacancy of Gyn. & Obst. advertised as a result of judgment of Sidhu J. is beyond challenge. 8. Coming to the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Rekha Jain it may be stated that there is no dispute between the parties that Dr. Kalpna Srivastava did her M.B.B.S. from S.M.S. Medical College and as such she was entitled to the weightage of 5% marks. If that be so, Dr. Kalpna Srivastava was more meritorious than Dr. Rekha Jain. She had filed representation against the appointment of Dr. Rekha Jain as Registrar under order dated March 19, 1984 in the department of Gyn. & Obst. in S M S. Medical College as well as her registration in Post-graduate course as Registrar under Dr. Sudhakar. The vacancy of Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur had arisen as a result of the incumbent Dr. Manjula Duggar resigning from the said post on September 30, 1983. As per the guidelines the vacancy should have been advertised. but was not advertised. Only two applications bad been received, one from Dr. Rekha Jain and the other from Dr. Kalpna Srivastava. So far as respective merit of these two is concerned, there being no doubt that Dr. Kalpna Srvastava was more meritorious and if the appointment on the post of Registrar would have been made on merit, which should have been made as per the guidelines Dr. Rekha Jain and the other from Dr. Kalpna Srivastava. So far as respective merit of these two is concerned, there being no doubt that Dr. Kalpna Srvastava was more meritorious and if the appointment on the post of Registrar would have been made on merit, which should have been made as per the guidelines Dr. Kalpna Srivastava would have been appointed and not Dr. Rekha Jain. The stand of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition filed by Dr. Kalpna Srivastava was that Dr. Rekha Jain was given appointment on the post in question in exercise of administrative exigencies. The learned Single Judge in his order while dealing with the case of Dr. Kalpna Srivastava has clearly held as under : "Learned Government Advocate conceded that there was no specific provision in the guidelines for making transfer of one candidate from one Medical College to another. If such transfer is permitted, it may certainly create complications and is bound to cause grievance as there is a provision for giving weightage of 5 per cent marks to the local candidates having obtained degree of MBBS from a particular medical college. For illustration Dr. Kalpna Srivastava had passed MBBS from SMS Medical College, Jaipur and Dr. Rekha Jain from Jodhpur and while considering their cases for appointment at Jaipur Dr. Kalpna Srivastava may nave snore percentage of effective marks as she would get the benefit of 5 per cent for any vacancy at Jaipur but Dr. Rekha Jain would not have got such benefit." Thus, the learned Single Judge himself has held that on the basis of merit among these two, namely Dr. Rekha Jain and Dr. Kalpna Srivastava, the latter was more meritorious having more percentage of marks after getting weightage of 5%, marks but taking into consideration that Dr. Rekha Jain was going to complete her training period of three year,, he did not think it proper to grant any relief to Dr. Kalpna Srivastava. The learned Single Judge has also observed that Dr. Kalpna Srivastava was party to the merit petition filed by Dr. Bhateja (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1400/1984), and her appointment was quashed and therefore a direction was issued to re-advertise the post and to fill the vacancy on merits. Kalpna Srivastava. The learned Single Judge has also observed that Dr. Kalpna Srivastava was party to the merit petition filed by Dr. Bhateja (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1400/1984), and her appointment was quashed and therefore a direction was issued to re-advertise the post and to fill the vacancy on merits. He further observed that in the writ petition No. 1400/1984 the Court has not set aside the appointment of Dr Rekha Jain and Kalpna Srivastava could not be appointed on the basis of merit in the first vacancy advertised in pursuance to the order of the Court and thus the appointment of Dr. Rekha Jain is beyond challenge. It will be clear from the order of the learned Single Judge that he has held the transfer of Dr. Rekha Jain from S.N Medical College Jodhpur to S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur on the post of Registrar as bad and also gave a direction that in future the respondents shall not fill in vacancy in a particular Medical College by transferring a candidate from another Medical College and in case any vacancy arises in a particular medical college, it shall be advertised afresh and appointment shall be made strictly on the basis of merit. But taking into consideration that Dr. Kalpna Srivastava was a party in the writ petition filed by Dr. Bhateja and the appointment of Dr. Rekha Jain was upheld, he refused to give any relief to Dr. Kalpna Srivastava. We are afraid the approach of the learned Single Judge is not correct. In the writ petition filed by Dr. Bhateja no doubt Dr. Rekha Jain was also a party but Dr. Bhateja did not press that petition against Dr. Rekha Jain. It appears from the order of the learned Single Judge (page 7) that at the time of arguments in the writ petition No. 1400/1984 Dr. Bhateja did not press her grievance against Dr. Rekha Jain and contested the selection of Dr. Kalpna Srivastava only. That apart a perusal of the order-sheet dated November 29, 1984 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1400/1984 will show that Mr. Singhvi. learned counsel for Dr Bhateja was not desirous of prosecuting the writ petition against the respondent No. 4 (Dr. Rekha Jain) and that the petition may be taken as withdrawn to that extent. Kalpna Srivastava only. That apart a perusal of the order-sheet dated November 29, 1984 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1400/1984 will show that Mr. Singhvi. learned counsel for Dr Bhateja was not desirous of prosecuting the writ petition against the respondent No. 4 (Dr. Rekha Jain) and that the petition may be taken as withdrawn to that extent. The learned Judge made the order that the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn in so far as respondent No. 4 (Dr. Rekha Jain) is concerned. It can be therefore be said that once as a result of withdrawal of the writ petition by Dr. Bhateja against Dr. Rekha Jain the writ petition stood dismissed as withdrawn so far as Dr. Rekha Jain she was no longer a party to the writ petition and therefore the learned Judge should not have observed that the appointment of Dr. Rekha Jain was not set aside by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1400/ 1984 and therefore, her appointment is beyond challenge. It will therefore be clear that there was no adjudication on merits so far as the case of Dr Rekha Jain is concerned as to who among them (Dr Jam and Dr. Srivastava) was more meritorious to the post of Registrar which had arisen as a result of resigning by Dr. Manjula Duggar on September 30, 1983. 9. As already stated earlier, there is no dispute that among the two applicants, namely Dr Rekha Jain and Dr. Kalpna Srivastava Dr. Kalpna Stivastave on the basis of merit should have been selected and appointed as Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. in S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. But she was not appointed and Dr. Rekha Jain was appointed. So far as the alleged transfer of Dr. Rekha Jain from Jodhpur to Jaipur as Registrar is concerned, firstly the order dated March 11,1984 does not speak about the said transfer and only speaks that Dr. Rekha Jain, Medical Graduate from S.N. Medical College Jodhpur is appointed in S.M.S. Medical College Jaipur as Registrar in the department of Gyn. & Obst. and secondly, the learned Single Judge himself has held that in the guidelines for selection and appointment of Registrars issued by the Government of Rajasthan there is no provision for transfer. The vacancy as a result of resignation of Dr. & Obst. and secondly, the learned Single Judge himself has held that in the guidelines for selection and appointment of Registrars issued by the Government of Rajasthan there is no provision for transfer. The vacancy as a result of resignation of Dr. Manjula Duggar had arisen on September 30, 1983 and it was filled in by appointment only under order dated March 19, 1984 i e. atleast after 6 months. Though, the vacancy could and should have been filled in after advertising the same but we need not go into this question presently because Dr. Rekha Jain was appointed only on the application and not after advertising the vacancy. There were two applications, as already stated, one from Dr. Rekha Jain and the other from Dr. Kalpna Srivastava and out of the two, Dr. Kalpna Srivastava was more meritorious and she should have been appointed in preference to Dr. Rekha Jain. Thus, the appointment of Dr. Rekha Jain is against the guidelines and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution because Dr. Kalpna Srivastava who is more meritoreous, has been denied the appointment. Be that as it may, we have already stated earlier that Dr. Rekha Jain has already appeared in the examination and has passed the same. We therefore as already stated earlier. would not like to quash her appointment. But at the same time we will not let Dr. Kalpna Srivastava suffer. We will see what relief can be granted to her. 10. One vacancy had arisen out of resignation of Dr. Manjula Duggar in the department of Gyn. & Obst. The other seat in Radio diagnosis has been utilised for Gyn. & Obst. and we have held that it is beyond challenge now. Thus for the aforesaid two seats of Registrars, in Gyn. & Obst Dr. Kalpna Srivastava and Dr. Anju Soni should have been appointed. Though Dr. Anju Soni was rightly appointed but Mr. Kalpna Srivastava who should have been appointed was denied the appointment as Registrar and Dr. Rekha Jain was illegally appointed in the place. Dr. Rekha Jain has completed the three year post graduate course and we will now not like to quash her appointment as Registrar. But Dr. Though Dr. Anju Soni was rightly appointed but Mr. Kalpna Srivastava who should have been appointed was denied the appointment as Registrar and Dr. Rekha Jain was illegally appointed in the place. Dr. Rekha Jain has completed the three year post graduate course and we will now not like to quash her appointment as Registrar. But Dr. Kalpna Srivastava has already suffered much for no fault of her and on equity and to do justice she has to be adjusted even by creation of an additional seat of Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. for 1984 because the seat on which she should have been appointed as Registrar has already been utilised, though wrongly, for Dr. Rekha Jain. 11. Consequently, we allow special appeal No. 1/1986 (Dr. Anju Soni v. State of Rajasthan and others) , dismiss S.B. Civil Writ Petition No, 1236/1985, Dr. M.S. Nathawat v. State of Rajasthan) and set aside the order of the learned Single Jude that the seat in the department of Radio Diagnosis could not be utilised or transferred to the department of Gyn. & Obst. We uphold the utilsation and transfer of the seat from Radio Diagnosis to Gyn. & Obst. as well as appointment of Dr. Anju Soni as Registrar. We allow special appeal No. 2886 (Dr. Kalpna Srivastava v. State of Rajasthan and others) set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and partly allow S B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1768/1984 (Dr. Kalpna Srivastava v. State of Rajasthan and others) . But for the reasons stated earlier, we do not set aside the appointment of Dr. (Mrs.) Rekha Jain to the post of Registrar, but the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to create an additional post of Registrar in the department of Gyn & Obst. in the year 1984 and appoint Dr. Kalpna Srivastava as Registrar in Gyn. & Obst. in that seat. We direct the respondents to appoint Dr Kalpna Srivastava as Registrar in the department of Gyn. & Obst with immediate effect on Special Appeal No. 16/1986 (Dr. M.S. Nathawat v. State of Rajasthan and others) is dismissed. Costs made easy.Dismissed. *******