Honble SINGHAL, J. — This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal and the similar writ petitions as mentioned in Schedule-A appended to the judgment since the order of learned Single Judge dated 24.11.1990 has been challenged and the points involved in all the matters are common. (2). Learned Single Judge vide its order dated 24.11.1990 has disposed of a bunch of 690 writ petitions and directions were given that the respondents would prepare a merit list of all the successful candidates having 37.5% or more marks and consider the candidature of all those persons having 37.5% of marks or more for the purposes of giving appointments to the post of L.D.C. in the various subordinate offices and departments under the Government of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat and the office of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission etc. and would ensure that no candidate having a percentage of 37.5% and more than that at the previous examination, which is the subject matter of this litigation, and have been deprived of the appointment merely on the basis of preference given for one district and the preference which has been given for the purpose of second district to serve, is left without job. This order was made applicable to all the petitioners and other successful candidates of the examination in question having 37.5% marks or more irrespective of the fact whether their writ petitions are pending before this court or the cases in which no writ petitions have been filed. (3). The facts giving rise to the present dispute are that an advertisement was issued on July 23,1986 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Commission") in respect of the competitive examination of Lower Division Clerks for 888 posts in the Subordinate Offices of the Government of Rajasthan, 57 posts in the Secretariat and 21 posts in the Commission. The total strength thus was 966 at the first instance. The last date for submission of application form was 15.10.1986 which was extended to 31.12.1986 and 98537 applications were received. Written examination was held on December 13, 1987 and the result was declared on May 9, 1988. The type examination was held on 29/30.10.1988 and the result was also declared on April 17, 1989. The select list was sent to the Government on July 3, 1989. Written examination was held on December 13, 1987 and the result was declared on May 9, 1988. The type examination was held on 29/30.10.1988 and the result was also declared on April 17, 1989. The select list was sent to the Government on July 3, 1989. In the advertisement issued, options were invited from the candidates for one district only, whereas Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules") contemplated that option has to be given in respect of two districts. The list in respect of Bikaner District was prepared, in which the last candidate who was taken was having 37.5% marks, which were rounded to 38%. A batch of 58 writ petitions was filed on the ground that the candidates were not asked to give their option in respect of second district and since the candidates having 37.5% marks have been placed in the list prepared for Bikaner district, therefore, the right of those persons who could have given option for Bikaner district were deprived of giving such option on account of the advertisement issued, which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules and it has deprived of their right for employment. The writ petitions were allowed on August 1, 1990 in the case of Rajendra Singh V/s State of Rajasthan (1). It was directed in this judgement that since all the petitioners have given their second choice (in writ) for appointment in Bikaner District they shall be. considered to be given appointment on the posts still lying vacant in Bikaner District in order of merit, provided none of them has secured less than 38% marks. (4). Two Special Appeals No. 263/90 R.P.S.C. V/s Om Dutt Sharma and others and 264/90 R.P.S.C. V/s Rajendra Singh and others (2) were also preferred which were decided on 10.10.1990. In the aforesaid two cases, the Division Bench has held that the Commission shall issue a general notice to be published in the News-paper having wide circulation and call upon all the remaining candidates who have been successful at the examination to give their options for second district and then prepare a select list on the basis of merit and choice of districts and forward the same to the Government for the purposes of making appointments. It was further directed that the Government shall make appointments from this list against the posts of LDCs, which were available with it including those which had become available within six months from the date of the original list was forwarded by the Commission to the Government in the Department of Personnel. 140 posts which were referred in the judgment of the learned Single Judge were also directed to be included in the said list. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that in accordance with the Rules the option has to be obtained in respect of two districts and, therefore, the above directions were given and the benefit was given to all successful candidates whether they have filed the writ petitions or not. (5). In the remaining 56 Appeals which were filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge (Honble Justice I.S. Israni), the Division Bench followed the decision given by the earlier Division Bench as reported in 1990 (1) RLR 182 (supra) as per its judgment dated 29.1.1991. In the mean-time, 966 posts were increased to 1882 by the Government and appointments were given to the candidates on the basis of the list prepared of the option being given for one district. (6). 689 Writ Petitions were filed by different candidates who were not given appointments and they were disposed of by the judgment dated 24.11.1990 in Sunita Gupta V/s State of Rajasthan (3). This decision has been challenged in the present special appeal. It is pertinent to note here that the selection of those candidates to whom appointment was given, was not challenged in these writ petitions and the only grievance was that because less meritorious candidates have been given appointments, therefore, these petitioners should also be given appointment. This decision has been challenged in the present special appeal. It is pertinent to note here that the selection of those candidates to whom appointment was given, was not challenged in these writ petitions and the only grievance was that because less meritorious candidates have been given appointments, therefore, these petitioners should also be given appointment. Ah objection was raised on behalf of the Government that since the Division Bench has given directions that a general notice has to be issued calling upon all successful candidates to give their option for the second district and then prepare a select list and for that purpose the posts of L.D.C. which were available with the Government including the posts which have become available within six months of the date on which the original list was sent by the Commission to the Government in the Department of Personnel, the relief will be granted to those candidates including previous petitioners who are conversed by these directions of the Division Bench by including 144 posts which were referred by the learned Single Judge. The argument on behalf of the petitioners that no further appointment should be allowed to be made unless the whole list of successful candidates at the examination in question is exhausted, was negatived and it was held that looking to the facts and circumstances of this case in its entirety and that the scheme of the Rules operates year-wise, it is rather difficult to accept this contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that no further recruitment should be allowed to be made unless the whole list of the successful candidates at the previous examination is exhausted. While dealing with the matter on merits, it was held that once it has been found that a candidate with lessor marks has been appointed and this situation has been precipitated because of wrong interpretation of the rules given by the respondents, the candidate with higher merit cannot be made to suffer, whether the vacancies as such may have been available or not, the respondents have to find their own way as to how to accommodate the candidates having 37.5% marks or more than that. Whether the respondents create supernumerary posts or they evolve out a scheme to utilise the vacancies on equivalent posts in the State Controlled Corporation and Enterprises or in other agencies or instrumentalities of the State or they determine as to in fact how many candidates are working in the various departments of the State on ad hoc or daily wages and as to how many of them will have to make way for the regularly selected candidates having percentage of marks 37.5% and more than that, is a matter of fact, created this situation, It was further observed that so far this court is concerned, the Court cannot say No to a candidate who has obtained 37.5% marks or more than that. Once it has been admitted before the court by the respondents themselves that the last appointed candidate in the general category is a candidate having 37.5% marks, in case such a relief is denied, it would be doing violence to the merit and this would dwindle the object sought to be achieved and shake the mounting faith which the youth and the people of India repose in the Judiciary for the purposes of protecting the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, the writ petitions were allowed and all candidates having 37.5% marks or more were directed to be given employment. (7). In pursuance of the directions of the Division Bench in the judgment reported in 1990 (1) RLR 182 (supra), the Commission has issued notification calling upon the candidates to give option for one more district. (8). Another writ petition, Om Prakash Sharam vs. State of Rajasthan along with 829 other similar writ petitions was decided on 07.5.1992 by a Division Bench, in which the provisions of Rules 19 and 24 were struck down so far holding of examination and preparing the merit list according to the districts was concerned. (9). There were 9321 candidates who have qualified the competitive examination of 1986. In the main list, which was sent to the Government on 3.07.1989, 1777 names were included and a reserve list which was valid for six months of 713 candidates was also sent. (9). There were 9321 candidates who have qualified the competitive examination of 1986. In the main list, which was sent to the Government on 3.07.1989, 1777 names were included and a reserve list which was valid for six months of 713 candidates was also sent. When the present special appeal was heard on 10.04.1991, the Division Bench consisting of Honble Justice M.B. Sharma and Honble Justice G.S. Singhvi passed an interim order to call for option from the candidates for one more district and sent a list of 906 candidates in accordance with merit. It may be noted that the vacancies as on 10.4.1991 were said to be existing only 906. In compliance of this direction, another notification was issued on 29.04.1991 calling for the option for one more district in respect of these 906 posts. The list of these 906 candidates was sent to the Government on 24.07.1991 and the appointment orders were also issued in September, 1991. 249 persons have not joined out of these 906 vacancies, for which letters were issued. The list of 249 candidates was prepared on the basis of merit of State-wise in accordance with the judgment dated 7.5.1992 in the case of Om Prakash Sharma V/s State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7072/91. Appointment letters were issued on 9.10.1992 and the last person appointed in the list was having 61.5% marks. It has also been informed that now the total number of candidates who have obtained minimum pass marks of 37.5% and could not be given appointment, is 6526. In respect of Bikaner District, it was informed that a list of 275 candidates was prepared in which the last candidate of the general category obtained 37.5% marks and was placed at Serial No. 268. The last candidate who was given appointment was up to Serial No. 219 and have obtained 46.5% marks and rest of the persons of the general category were not given appointments. The minimum percentage on which a candidate according to the State merit list was 43.5% at Jalore where the last appointment was given. (10). On 10.04.1991 it was directed that this appeal will be treated as having been preferred against all the writ petitions disposed of and filing of separate appeals in the extra ordinary circumstances was dispensed with. (11). The minimum percentage on which a candidate according to the State merit list was 43.5% at Jalore where the last appointment was given. (10). On 10.04.1991 it was directed that this appeal will be treated as having been preferred against all the writ petitions disposed of and filing of separate appeals in the extra ordinary circumstances was dispensed with. (11). An application was moved on 16.04.1991 by Shri B.L. Samdaria on behalf of some of the respondents for modification of the interim order dated 10.04.1991 alleging some anamolies in the advertisement issued. The said application was disposed of on 14.5.1991 and it was held that although the department-wise vacancies are not mentioned in the advertisement but it will not make any difference because Districtwise vacancies have been shown. Another application dated 1.8.1991 was moved by Shri Samdaria, which was also dismissed on 3.9.1991 with a direction that the Government should give appointments to the candidates against 906 vacancies as they existed on 10.04.1991 immediately without any further delay. As pointed out above, 647 candidates were given appointment on the basis of options for second district. (12). Number of other applications were also filed including the application dated 1.7.1991 in which a prayer was made to enquire the number of vacancies during the year 1986-87 to 1991-92. In the application dated 10.07.1991, it was mentioned that in the State level Conference of the Education Officers held at Mount Abu from 24.6.1991 to 26.6. 1991, 1243 vacancies of L.D.Cs. were shown vacant in the Education Department itself. Further application dated 30.01.1992 was moved, in which it was stated that out of 906 candidates, 337 candidates have not joined and again a request was made with regard to the existing vacancies of L.D.Cs. in the Government Secretariat, Rajasthan Public Service Commission and 30 districts and other departments of the State apart from the Head Office and head quarters. Further application was moved on 6.04.1992 that in the Assembly the vacancies of the Education Department was stated 1119 and in the Insurance Department as 203. in the Government Secretariat, Rajasthan Public Service Commission and 30 districts and other departments of the State apart from the Head Office and head quarters. Further application was moved on 6.04.1992 that in the Assembly the vacancies of the Education Department was stated 1119 and in the Insurance Department as 203. An affidavit was submitted by the respondent in July, 1992 that an advertisement was issued for filling in 130 posts of L.D.C. by Soldier Board and 6 posts of L.D.C. in the office of Project Director Rural Department, Shriganganagar and it was stated that 1243 vacancies of L.D.C. as on 24.10.1991 exist in the Education Department whereas according to the appellants, the vacancies as on 4.2.93 are only 1597. An affidavit has also been filed by the Officer-in-charge, wherein it was submitted that appointment in the Bikaner district to the last candidate in general quota was of Shri Ganesh Kumar Purohit who was at Serial No. 219 and has secured 46.5% marks. The last percentage of marks was informed of one, Shri Joota Ram Mali of Jalore district who was placed in the main list at Serial No. 30 and has obtained 43.5% marks. The various applications submitted by the respondents are disposed of by this judgment and there is no necessity of passing separate orders thereon in view of the fact that even -the number of vacancies subsequent to the competitive examination of 1986 and as on the date of conclusion of the arguments have already been informed. (13). The submission of Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents is that in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules, it has been provided that the appointing authority shall determine on 1st April every year, the actual number of vacancies occurring during the financial year. In sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules it has been provided that the Appointing Authority shall also determine the vacancies of earlier years, yearwise which were required to be filled in by promotion, if such vacancies were not determined and filled earlier in the year in which they were required to be filled in. In the present case the vacancies of earlier year were already taken into consideration when advertisement was issued. In the present case the vacancies of earlier year were already taken into consideration when advertisement was issued. Therefore, for the subsequent years the vacancies which have occurred cannot be filled up from the candidates who have appeared in the competitive examination of 1986. It is submitted that much injustice has been done to those candidates who became eligible from 1986 onwards when the number of vacancies were directed to be filled up by this Court. The appointing authority, no doubt, is under duty to determine the vacancies but that would not give right to the court for filling up the vacancies of the subsequent years or as on today from the list of the candidates who have appeared in the Examination of 1986. It has also been submitted that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11 since the competitive examinations have not been held after 1986, they would soon be held and in respect of the vacancies from 1986-87 onwards, the candidates who have become eligible if are not given chance even to appear in the competitive examination, it would deprive them of their rights if the vacancies are directed to be filled up even of the subsequent period from the list of the successful candidates who have appeared in the competitive examination of 1986. The said list was in respect of the vacancies upto 1985-86. If any candidate has not been selected then he can take benefit of the provisions of Rule 11 and can appear in the examination which will be held by the Commission in this regard. It is also submitted that simply qualifying in a particular examination does not give right to any candidate for his selection and it has wrongly been mentioned that the candidate having 37.5% marks was given appointment in Bikaner District. It was only the list of eligible candidates prepared, which by mistake of the Officer-in-charge or the then Advocate could not be correctly put up before the court and when this fact has been investigated it was found that the last candidate who was given appointment in Bikaner district has secured 46.5% marks and when the complete list of the State was prepared, it was found that the minimum percentage was 43.5 in respect of the candidate for Jalore district. The procedure for inviting applications under rule 21, selection under rule 24 and appointment under rule 25 have to be in accordance with the Rules. Since the complete vacancies of 1985-86 and even major part of the subsequent years have already been filled up then it is submitted that directions which have been given by the learned Single Judge are contrary to the Rules. It is also submitted that by preparing list no candidate acquires any right of selection and it is the discretion of the Government to give appointment or not to give appointment. The first two appointments were made on the basis of one district option and second district option and the last appointments were given on the basis of State-wise merit list. This has been done to comply with the orders, which have been passed by this court from time to time and since the petitioners have not challenged the validity of the appointments already made of 1882 candidates on the basis of option of one district and 659 on the basis of second district, then they cannot challenge the action of the Government in not giving appointments to those candidates who have secured more marks. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has, in para 20 of the Judgment, rejected the contention of the petitioners and held that the scheme of the Rules operates yearwise and it is difficult to direct that no further recruitment should be allowed to be made unless the whole list of successful candidates at the previous examination is exhausted, while in paras 26 and 27 a contrary direction has been given. It has further been submitted that in accordance with the decision of the Division Bench reported in 1990(1) RLR 182 (supra), the Government was directed to make appointments from the list against the posts of L.D.Cs which were available with it, including those which had become available within 6 months from the date the original list was forwarded by the Commission to the Government in the Department of Personnel and this would include 144 posts which were referred in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to these directions and the Government has already given appointments after preparing the list on the posts of L.D.C. which were available with it and even more than those which became available within 6 months from the date of original listand 144 posts referred in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appointments which have been given to 659 persons are much more and at present only 1597 seats are available. (14). Reliance has been placed on the decision of Shankersen Dass V/s Union of India (4) wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that the process of selection has to be closed at some stage. It has also been held that a candidate cannot be said to have acquired a rigfht to be appointed against the additional vacancy arising later, which remained unfilled. A candidate whose name appears in the merit list on the basis of competitive examination does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed as a Government servant even if a vacancy exists. (15). Reliance has also been placed on the decision of State of Haryana V/s Subhash Chand (5) in which it has been held that the Government is not bound to fill up all posts and a mandamus could be issued when it is shown that the Statute imposes legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party has a right to enforce its performance. It is submitted that in accordance with the Rules the post could be filled up only by holding competitive examination for the vacancies of subsequent years now and the petitioner-respondents have no legal right. (16). It has also been submitted that in accordance with the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Rajrani V/s Punjab Agriculture University (6) where number of posts were limited and the candidates who became eligible for subsequent year were far larger than it was held that it is just and fair and proper that the advertisement is issued at regular intervail of time, so that the persons who became eligible could get a chance to compete. If a panel once prepared is kept alive till it is fully exhausted, large number of persons who became eligible every year would never get a chance to compete. It would result in denial of opportunity to all such persons. If a panel once prepared is kept alive till it is fully exhausted, large number of persons who became eligible every year would never get a chance to compete. It would result in denial of opportunity to all such persons. The prescription of time limit of six months avoid such situation. It affords an opportunity to the eligible candidates to compete. It is also submitted that even in the present case, 6526 candidats who have qualified if are directed to be given appointment, then neither such vacancies exist nor the Government can bear the burden and it would be a denial of justice in perpetuity to those who have become eligible for appearing in the competitive examinations from 1986-87 onwards. . (17). Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Savita Prasad V/s State of Bihar (7), wherein a panel was prepared district-wise, which was declared unconstitutional by the High Court of Patna in Anil Kumar V/s Chief Secretary, (8). The High Court directed that the appointments already made from those panels should not be disturbed, but the State was restrained from giving any further appointment from the panels prepared for different districts. It was held that the panel prepared in the present case was only in the nature of eligible list of qualified trained teachers arranged according to their merit in chronological order. The list so prepared was found neither related to existing vacancies nor to anticipated vacancies and in these circumstances, it was held that such panel does not create vested or indefeasible right to be appointed. It was further observed that the panel prepared in the instant case was only to finalise the list of eligible candidates for appointment. The panel was too long and was intended to last indefinitely barring the future generations for decades from being considered in the vacancies arising much later. It was found that in fact future generations would have been kept out for a very long period had the panel been permitted to remain effective till exhausted. A panel of the type prepared in the present case cannot be equated with the panel which is prepared having co-relation to the existing vacancies or anticipated vacancies arising in the near future for a fixed time and prepared as a result of some selection process. A panel of the type prepared in the present case cannot be equated with the panel which is prepared having co-relation to the existing vacancies or anticipated vacancies arising in the near future for a fixed time and prepared as a result of some selection process. It was submitted on the basis of this judgment that in the similar circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that the panel cannot be kept alive for indefinite period when there is specific rule in this regard and the directions of the Division Bench that panel could survive only in respect of the vacancies which may occur within 6 months from the date of sending panel to the Government is proper. That work has already been completed and the petitioners have no right for being considered for appointment. (18). Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiah V/s J. Sreenivasa Rao (9), in which it has been held that the appointment cannot be given against the vacancies arising during the period 1976-77 from amongst the left over panel of 1975. (19). It has been submitted that the directions given by the learned Single Judge to create supernumerary posts to the autonomous bodies and Corporations etc. are not in accordance with law and the remedy available to the candidates who are in the panel could be to apply again in the subsequent examination. (20). The judgment of Prakash Chand V/s State of Rajasthan (10) was also cited to show that there is an obligation to determine the yearwise vacancies. (21). In accordance with the judgment of Rakesh Ranjan V/s State of Bihar (11) the life of panel was said to be of one year and it was submitted that no right can be claimed by the selected candidate after one year. In the present case, no right could be claimed after six months. (22). Shri Dalip Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the provisions of Rule 19(1) and Rule 24 of the Rules, which provide for district wise merit list have been held to be violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the directions were given for preparation of State-wise merit list. (22). Shri Dalip Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the provisions of Rule 19(1) and Rule 24 of the Rules, which provide for district wise merit list have been held to be violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the directions were given for preparation of State-wise merit list. According to his submission, the entire list should have been prepared of the merit in accordance with the decision given in the case of Om Prakash Sharma, referred to above and to give appointments. only to few of the candidates is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the candidates who have been given lessor marks and were less meritorious were given appointments on the basis of option for one district and on the basis of option for another district and, therefore, not giving appointments to the more meritorious candidates was not the correct approach and, therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law. (23). Reliance has been placed on the decision of Kuldeep Singh V/s Punjab & Sindh Bank (12), wherein the employer has drawn a big panel but promotions were given only to some of the empannelled employees and rest of the posts were filled in by direct recruitment concealing number of vacancies existing. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court directed to promote the petitioner as well as other persons of the panel as early as possible in the available vacancies as well as the vacancies that will occur till all empannelled candidates are promoted. It is submitted that on the basis of this judgment the candidates who are in the panel list of successful candidates should be given appointments till the panel is exhausted. It is further submitted that the State alone is responsible for creating the situation by taking action which was void ab initio and has been declared ultra vires of the Constitution and, therefore, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong in preparing the merit list district-wise. It is further submitted that the State alone is responsible for creating the situation by taking action which was void ab initio and has been declared ultra vires of the Constitution and, therefore, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong in preparing the merit list district-wise. It has been found by the Division Bench that the list should have been prepared according to the entire State and therefore, the appointments which have been given on the basis of district-wise list, even if not challenged, would not give right to the State Government not to give appointments to those candidates who are entitled in order of merit on the basis of list now prepared of the entire State. The State Government cannot say that it will hold fresh recruitment and select more meritorious persons in respect of the vacancies for subsequent years. Since actual number of vacancies were concealed before the learned Single Judge inspite of the directions given by the court to give details, this position has emerged and the State Government alone is responsible for it and, therefore, directions given by the learned Single Judge are in accordance with law. (24). Mr. M. Mridul, appearing for the petitioner-respondents has submitted that the rules are mandatory qua the State and not qua the candidates and, therefore, it was the obligation of the State to determine yearwise vacancies and to act according to the Rules. Since there was no determination of vacancies year-wise nor there were the examinations conducted by the Commission in accordance with the rules for the subsequent years, therefore, the vacancies as they exist today should be allowed to be filled in from amongst the eligible candidates. The argument of Mr. Mridul is that no directions could be given for the future vacancies, but it could be given in respect of the vacancies as they exist today and therefore, 1497 vacancies as they exist as on 31.01.1993 should atleast be directed to be filled up from the State-wise merit list of meritorious candidates. (25). Mr. R.P. Garg appearing on behalf of Shri Suresh Goswami has submitted that the first list of 268 candidates for Bikaner district was prepared and the candidates were directed to produce their original documents vide letter dated 6.7.1989, which was complied with. Appointments were given to 229 candidates. (25). Mr. R.P. Garg appearing on behalf of Shri Suresh Goswami has submitted that the first list of 268 candidates for Bikaner district was prepared and the candidates were directed to produce their original documents vide letter dated 6.7.1989, which was complied with. Appointments were given to 229 candidates. A ban was imposed on 6.06.1990 and the said ban has been lifted on 15.04.1991, but because of the stay granted by this court on 10.04.1991, appointments to the candidates of the first list have not been given. The list was sent to the Government on 24.07.1991 and when it was found that the name of the petitioner is not there, then the writ petition was filed on 1.08.1991. It is submitted that there is no delay on the part of his client and the writ petition should not have been dismissed on the ground of laches. It is also submitted that the first list which was prepared has given a right to his client and now those candidates cannot be denied employment. » According to Mr. Garg, preference should be given to the candidates whose names exist in the first list which was prepared on the basis of one district alone. He submitted that the directions according to the State-wise list could not be implemented till appointments are given to the persons whose names found place in the first list. It is also submitted that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4834/90 Sanwarmal Sharma V/s State of Rajasthan decided on 01.4.1991, it was directed by the learned Single Judge that the appointment letter be issued to the petitioner as soon as ban is lifted and the seniority was directed to be given in accordance with law. The prayer which has been made by Mr. Garg is that since ban has been lifted, then those candidates alone whose names found in the first list which was prepared on the basis of the option of one district alone, should be given appointments. (26). Shri R.K. Mathur, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that there is no fault on the part of the petitioners and the vacancies which have occurred in the year 1986-87 and in the subsequent years should be allowed to be filled in. (27). (26). Shri R.K. Mathur, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that there is no fault on the part of the petitioners and the vacancies which have occurred in the year 1986-87 and in the subsequent years should be allowed to be filled in. (27). Shri S.K. Sharma has also submitted that number of vacancies have not been submitted before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, all candidates should be directed to be given appointments. (28). The submission of Mr. B.L. Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents is that the combind competitive examination-1986 conducted by the Commission was in violation of the statutory rules and was void ab initio and the provisions of Rule 19 and Rule 24 of the Rules of 1957 were contravened. The petitioner respondents are not responsible for such illegality and it is only the State alone who has to bear the consequences. It is submitted that no reply was filed before the learned Single Judge and since the contentions remained uncontrovered and unrebutted, they have to have relied upon. The actual number of vacancies of L.D.C. in the subordinate offices, Secretariat and the Commission were not placed before the learned Single Judge despite repeated opportunities being given and it was also not informed as to how many persons were working on the post of L.D.C. on urgent temporary basis or on daily wage basis. 1882 vacancies which were raised from 966 were filled up on the basis of one district option and when on 10.04.1991 it was admitted that 900 vacancies were existing then in accordance with the second district option, appointments were given to 657 candidates as 249 candidates did not join. The validity of the provisions of Rules 19 and 24 of the Rules was challenged before the Division Bench and the proviso to rule 19 and the words district-wise in rule 24 were declared invalid and unconstitutional by the Division Bench and, therefore, it should be considered void from inception. The present writ petitions were based on the ground of violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was admitted before the learned Single Judge that the last candidate who was given appointment in Bikaner district, has secured 37.5% marks. The present writ petitions were based on the ground of violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was admitted before the learned Single Judge that the last candidate who was given appointment in Bikaner district, has secured 37.5% marks. In this manner, the meritorious candidates have been ignored and they have been denied the appointments on the post of L.D.C. The decision, which has been given by the learned Single Judge referring that the appointments were given to the candidates having secured 37.5% marks should be considered as correct and the affidavit which has now been submitted should be ignored. It has ako been submitted that there is hostile discrimination with regard to the meritorious candidates who have altogether been ignored and for this purpose reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Agarwal V. State of Bihar (13) wherein the names of candidates securing lessor marks were included and it was held that non- inclusion of candidates having higher marks as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It may be mentioned over here that the validity of the list has not been challenged before this court nor the candidates who have already been selected their appointments have been challenged or have been impleaded as parties in these proceedings. In the case before the Apex Court, the Government of India at the first instance decided to appoint 83 candidates and later on it decided to appoint 637 candidates. After the list of the successful candidates was submitted by the Committee, the Government appointed 83 candidates and later on 14 more candidates who belonged to back-ward classes were appointed. These 14 appointments were challenged before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the appointments of 14 candidates and directed the Commission to forward the names of successful candidates, in accordance with the rules. Further list containing the names of 18 candidates was submitted by the Commission thereafter. A petition for contempt was filed before the High Court and another list containing the names of 20 candidates was submitted. In the select list of these 18 candidates, the Commission did not include the names of the appellant even though names of less meritorious candidates, namely at Sl. Nos. 36, 37 and 38 were included. A petition for contempt was filed before the High Court and another list containing the names of 20 candidates was submitted. In the select list of these 18 candidates, the Commission did not include the names of the appellant even though names of less meritorious candidates, namely at Sl. Nos. 36, 37 and 38 were included. The High Court upheld the action of the Commission on the basis that it had not recommended any candidate who had secured less than 40 marks. It was held by the Apex Court that the High Court should have first decided the question as to whether the Commission had fixed 40% marks as qualifying marks or 38% marks as claimed by the appellant and then should have proceeded to decide whether the name of the candidate has been rightly excluded under the rules or not. The Apex Court found that the Commission had fixed 38% marks as qualifying marks and it was not open to the Commission to exclude the names of the candidates who have secured 38.8% marks in written examination. From the facts of this case, it would be evident that at the earlier stage the appointments which were given to 14 candidates were challenged and their appointments were quashed and a fresh list was directed to be prepared. In the present case, no challenge has been made to the appointments already given to the persons on the basis of one district option in respect of 1882 candidates or even of 657 candidates who have been given appointments on the basis of second district option. Since the appointments of 1882 candidates and 657 candidates have neither been challenged nor they have been arrayed as respondents, the judgment of the Apex Court is not applicable to the present case. (29). It has been submitted that in accordance with the decision of this court in Dr. (Mrs.) Anju Soni V/s State of Rajasthan (14), directions were given by this court to create additional post of Registrar because the petitioner had already appeared in the examination and passed the said examination and her appointment was not quashed. There were various posts of Residents/Registrars/ Senior Registrars and some of the posts remained unfilled due to the applications not forth corning. The Government utilised the vacant posts for some other specialities. There were various posts of Residents/Registrars/ Senior Registrars and some of the posts remained unfilled due to the applications not forth corning. The Government utilised the vacant posts for some other specialities. Instead of appointment less meritorious candidates were selected and the appointments of few of the doctors so appointed, Were challenged. Here again it has to be seen that the appointments made have not been challenged in the present writ petitions and, therefore, decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable. (30). Reliance has also been placed on the decision given by this court in State of Rajasthan vs. Beni Prasad Sharma (15), where a select list was prepared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the basis of the examination held in 1985, which was quashed and direction was issued for preparing fresh list on the basis of aggregate marks. It was observed that any candidate already appointed if included in such fresh list, then he should be continued and absorbed in service by creating additional vacancy. In the present case, petitioner-appellant Sunita Gupta has made a prayer for appointment against the existing vacancies. It has further been prayed that she should be treated as having given her second option for Bikaner District as against 79 vacancies. No prayer has been made either in any of the writ petition or even during the course of arguments that select list should be cancelled and the only prayer is that vacancies should be created and should be filled up from the candidates who have qualified in the competitive examination of 1986. Thus the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. (31). Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in Dr. Thus the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. (31). Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in Dr. P.S. Pathgaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra (16), wherein the students who have appeared in the Final M.B.B.S. examination in the end of October, 1989 and have become eligible for the first time to apply for admission to the P.G. Course in January, 1991, then in accordance with the Resolution of the Government dated 10.07.1989 the students were aware that they would get admission to the Post Graduate Course on the basis of total marks obtained by them at the final M.B.B.S. examination and additional seats would be created for those candidates who would have secured admission on the basis of concerned subject marks. The facts of this case are altogather different and it will not help the respondents. (32). Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this court in Paras Tara Chand V/s State of Rajasthan (17). This judgment has already been over-ruled by the Division Bench and is not a good law. (33). Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Shankersain Das V/s Union of India (18), in which it was held that even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are fount fit, the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies. Ordinarily, the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the state has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. It was observed that in the case of State of Hairyana V/s Subhash Chander (supra) it was observed that it was open to the government to decide how many appointments should be made and although the High Court had appreciated the position correctly, it had "somehow persuaded itself to spell out a right in the candidates because in fact there were 15 vacancies. It was ruled that it does not give a legal right to the selected candidates. The plea of arbitrariness was also rejected in this case on the basis of the judgment of Jitendra Kumar V/s State of Punjab (19) wherein it was held that the candidate did not acquire any right merely by applying for selection or even after selection. (34). The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Satya Narain V/s State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5509/91 decided on 28 August, 1992 was also relied upon, wherein it was held that the petitioner has a right to be appointed because the persons lower in merit have been given appointment. In this case it was submitted by the learned Government Advocate that 62 selected candidates have been given appointments and 28 persons including the petitioner were not given appointment on the ground of being over-age. The court found that the petitioner has not crossed the age and in these circumstances directions were given by the learned Single Judge for appointment of the petitioner. The facts of this case are also different with the facts of the present case. (35). Reliance has also been placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in P. Rajendran V/s State of Madras (20), wherein the allocation of seats district-wise was held to be having no nexus about classification and the object sought to be achieved and the rule was declared violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It may be mentioned here that the rule was struck down selection for the current year was upheld by the Apex Court. (36). It may be mentioned here that the rule was struck down selection for the current year was upheld by the Apex Court. (36). Learned counsel for the respondents have further submitted that the matter was also taken up before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. and in accordance with the order dated 8.3.1991, it was observed that another Bench of Rajasthan High Court has made a comprehensive assessment of the whole position in Sunita Gupta V/s State of Rajasthan S.B.C.W. No. 3917 of 1990 and connected cases had. granted wider and more comprehensive relief. If was urged, on that basis, that petitioners entitlement to such relief should not be denied by reason of the present judgment sought to be appealed against in this special leave petition. The Supreme Court observed as follows : "We do not want to go into this contention except to observe that if the later judgment in S.B.C.W. 3917 of 1990 has assumed finality and on a proper consideration of its effect and operation, petitioners can legitimately claim benefits there under they may apply and seek such relief. With these observations the Special Leave Petition is dismissed." On the basis of this judgment, it was submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has not been disturbed by the Apex Court and, therefore, relief should be given. We are afraid that the view taken by the learned counsel for the respondents is not correct. The said judgment has not attained the finality and in a subject matter of this appeal, in which the decision which has to be given shall be governing and deciding the various contentions raised. It has further been submitted that Proviso to Rule 19 and the words district-wise in Rule 24 of the Rules were declared void and the provisions of rule 21 were not declared ultra-vires. It has further been submitted that Proviso to Rule 19 and the words district-wise in Rule 24 of the Rules were declared void and the provisions of rule 21 were not declared ultra-vires. It is submitted that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules, the State-wise merit list was an absolute essentiality as per the scheme, which has not been done, inasmuch as the candidate who was given option for one district and the post was not available could have been posted in other district, therefore, the interpretation which has been placed by the Division Bench is correct and accordingly State-wise merit list was to be prepared and in any case once Proviso to rule 19 and the words district-wise in Rule 24 have been declared invalid, ultra vires and unconstitutional, then it will have its retrospective effect in a manner as if it never existed in the Statute Book and from the very inception and for this purpose reliance was placed on the decision of Deep Chand V/s State of U.P. (21) wherein the matter with regard to the case of Keshav Madhaw Menon V/s State of Bombay (22) was also considered and it was observed that "if a statute is void from its very birth then anything done under it, whether closed, completed, or inchoate, will be wholly illegal and relief in one shape or another has to be given to the person affected by such an unconstitutional law". (37). In Mahendra Lal Jain V/s State of U.P. (23) it was observed that the meaning of the word void is, for all practical purposes the same in both the clauses namely, that the law is ineffectual and nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect. The voidness of the post-constitution laws on the otherhand is from their very inception and they cannot be allowed to continue to exist for any purpose. (38). Reliance has also been placed on the decision of State of Gujrat V/s Ambika Mills (24), wherein it was held that Article 13(2) uses the expression void which could only mean void as against the person whose fundamental rights are taken away or breached by that law. (38). Reliance has also been placed on the decision of State of Gujrat V/s Ambika Mills (24), wherein it was held that Article 13(2) uses the expression void which could only mean void as against the person whose fundamental rights are taken away or breached by that law. The basis of relying of all these judgments is that once Proviso to Rule 19 and the words district-wise were declared ultra vires, then it should be deemed that they never existed and, therefore, the list should have been prepared according to the merits of all candidates of the State and non- preparation of the list is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is also submitted that the actual and correct number of vacancies of L.D.C. in the Government Secretariat, R.P.S.C. and all State departments (Head Offices and Head Quarters) and in all 30 districts from I.04.1986 to 31.03.1992 along with yearwise determination of such vacancies have not been submitted. The information with regard to the urgent, temporary, daily wage and daily rated employees have also not been given. It was directed by this court by way of an interim order that no appointment was to be given on the post of L.D.C. on daily wages or on work-charge basis and now they have brought an amendment in the rules itself, by which the vacancies are sought to be filled up. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 25 which has been added by Notification dated 12.10.1992 provides that all persons appointed as L.D.C. on ad hoc basis or on daily wage basis during the period from 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990 and are still working as such on the basis of this amendment what have came into force they shall be appointed on regular basis on availability of vacancies subject to the condition that they pass proficiency test conducted by the Head of the department concerned within a period of 3 years in accordance with the Syllabus prescribed. It is submitted that htis rule shows that there are number of persons who are working on ad hoc basis and they have no right in preference to the candidates who are duly selected and have passed the competitive examination and also stand in the merit. It is submitted that htis rule shows that there are number of persons who are working on ad hoc basis and they have no right in preference to the candidates who are duly selected and have passed the competitive examination and also stand in the merit. It is also submitted that the figures which have been given are absolutely incorrect and on the contrary, the figures which have been submitted by the petitioner-respondents are based on authentic documents. Now to allege that there are only 1597 vacancies of L.D.C. upto 4.2.1993 is not correct. So far as the validity of the amendment of Rule 25 by adding sub-rule (10) is concerned, it is not the subject matter of dispute in the present appeal and, therefore, the matter with regard to other objections shall be considered on merit. (39). The main argument of the petitioner-respondents is that appointments should be given to the meritorious candidates and not giving them appointments amounts to hostile discrimination. According to the submission of Mr. Samdaria, all 6526 candidates are entitled for being given appointments and it is for the State to create the posts even if they are not existing, since they have committed mistake in giving appointments to the less meritorious candidates. (40). We have considered over the matter and are of the view that the list sent by the Commission to the Government does not create any right for being given appointment. A problem may arise where in the list sent the name of more meritorious candidate is not included or appointment is given to less meritorious candidate. The proper course in that case would be to challenge the validity of appointment of such condidate or the preparation of the list. In the present matter neither the appointments of whose candidates who were selected and were duly given appointments either on the basis of one district option or on the basis of second district option have been challenged nor they have been made as party in the writ proceedings, nor it has been claimed that the said list should be declared illegal. Rather in the course of arguments, sympathy has been shown by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appointments which have already been given should not be disturbed. Then the question arises as to how the selections are to be made. Rather in the course of arguments, sympathy has been shown by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appointments which have already been given should not be disturbed. Then the question arises as to how the selections are to be made. Rule 24 of the Rules provides for preparation of such list and even for reserve list. The names of such candidates may, on receipt of requisition within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government in the Department of Personnel in such a manner as the Commission may decide, be recommended in order of merit to the Government in the Department of Personnel for appointment against additional vacancies. The reserve list is valid for a period of six months from the date of sending the same to the Government. If the list is not valid, then it would not be proper to direct that the said list should continue in perpetuity or till all candidates in the list are given appointment, the list should continue. It also cannot be said that the vacancies for 1986-87 and for subsequent years should be given to these candidates. Rule 9 of the Rules determines the vacancies and the present vacancies were in respect of the year 1985-86 and of earlier years. The vacancies of subsequent years cannot be directed to be filled in from the list of the previous years, which may affect the rights of those candidates who have become eligible to appear in the competitive examination and could not appear because the examinations were not held, though it was obligatory on the part of the appointing authority to determine the vacancies as on 1st April every year and for the Commission to conduct the examination. Even if it is not done, we can only direct that for the subsequent years 1986- 87 onwards, the vacancies should now be determined if not already determined and examinations should be held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules. In respect of the candidates who have appeared in this examination and their names appear in the merit list prepared on the basis of State-wise merit list, they will be entitled to compete in the said examination along with other eligible candidates. In respect of the candidates who have appeared in this examination and their names appear in the merit list prepared on the basis of State-wise merit list, they will be entitled to compete in the said examination along with other eligible candidates. The appellant must be careful in observing the provisions of relevant rules, particularly with regard to determination of vacancies, conducting examinations and timely giving appointments. (41). The question with regard to validity of the provisions of sub-rule (10) of Rule 25 of the Rules is not before us nor it could be directed that those candidates who are continuing since long should be removed from service and preference should be given to the candidates who have been selected in the Examination of 1986. (42). From the details already furnished, we feel that the number of seats of 966 was increased to 1882 and appointments to that extent have already been given. It was only by way of an interim order that on 10.04.1991 it was stated by the counsel for the appellant that 906 vacancies existed as on that day. Even those vacancies have been filled in on sympathetic grounds and now to say that even the vacancies for the subsequent period should be allowed to be filled in is not in accordance with the rules and would be doing injustice with thousands of candidates who have become eligible during this period for appearing in the competitive examination. (43). The directions which have been given by the learned Single Judge for creating posts or for finding out whether such appointments could be given in the Corporations or other instrumentalities of the States, are not in accordance with law and no such directions could be given because we are of the view that the vacancies for which advertisement was issued alone could be considered when any challenge is being made. Since the petitioner-respondents have not challenged the validity, of appointments of those candidates and the seats have already been filled up even in respect of subsequent period, then further directions could not be given for filling up either all 6526 vacancies in respect of the candidates who have qualified or 1597 for which the vacancies exist. Since the petitioner-respondents have not challenged the validity, of appointments of those candidates and the seats have already been filled up even in respect of subsequent period, then further directions could not be given for filling up either all 6526 vacancies in respect of the candidates who have qualified or 1597 for which the vacancies exist. The preparation of list does not confer any right and the various candidates to whom employment has not been given, the entire blame cannot be on the appellant, in as much as the writ petitions were filed in 1990 when the examinations were conducted in 1986. They themselves have approached the court at a very late stage, may because of the subsequent development on account of judgments given by this court either giving directions for second district or for preparing the merit list of the entire State instead of district-wise merit list, unless the appointments of the persons and the select list itself are challenged directions cannot be given for making appointments of the candidates who have qualified the competitive examination of 1986. An affidavit on behalf of the appellant was filed that no candidate having 37.5% marks in Bikaner district was given employment and it was only 46.5% marks of Bikaner district and the minimum marks were 43.5% at Jalore and the appointments were given on the basis of district-wise list. The affidavit stands unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Even on the basis of the submissions of the respondents, it cannot be considered that the persons securing upto 43.5% marks should be given employment as has been done in the case of Jalore. That was the list in accordance with the directions of this Court and if the appellant has acted on the directions of the court, then it cannot be said that they have acted with any malice. (44). So far as petitioner Suresh Goswami is concerned, no direction can be given now because it has been proved that the last candidate at Sl. No. 219 in Bikaner who was given appointment was having 46.5% marks and he nowhere stands in the merit. Besides this, the Division Bench has specifically held that the State-wise merit list has to be prepared. No. 219 in Bikaner who was given appointment was having 46.5% marks and he nowhere stands in the merit. Besides this, the Division Bench has specifically held that the State-wise merit list has to be prepared. The appointments were given to the candidates on the basis of State-wise list to the extent of 49 seats, which is not in dispute and, therefore, this petitioner has no case on merit, besides the point that it is dismissed on the ground of laches. (45). From the various authorities cited from both the sides, the law is clear that appointment has to be given on the basis of merit, the less meritorious candidates cannot be given appointment, but in these cases the appointments of the candidates had to be challenged, so that the select list itself is quashed. Simply on the ground of discrimination or violation of fundamental rights, it cannot be argued that since less meritorious candidates have been given appointments and therefore, more meritorious candidates have acquired a right to be given appointment. The posts for which the appointments were due have already been filled up and no directions can be given to fill up the vacancies of future years as it may affect the rights of other persons who are not parties before this Court. The directions given by the learned Single Judge in the operative portion of the judgment are inreconcilable, in asmuch as he himself has held that the list-----cannot be allowed to be exhausted, which may affect the right inperpetuity. No appeal was preferred by the respondents against the said observations and therefore, they have no right to say that the entire list should be allowed to be exhausted. Besides this, the decision of the Division Bench reported in 1990(1) RLR 182 (supra) was very specific when it directed that the Government shall make appointments from this list against the posts of L.D.C. which were available with it, including those which have become available within six months from the date of original list was forwarded by the Commission to the Government in the Department of Personnel. We are bound by this decision and therefore, the only direction which could have been given was to give appointment from the list of the posts, which were available with the Government including those which had become available within six months from the date the original list was forwarded by the Commission. The directions beyond that would be contrary to the decision of the Division Bench. (46). The result of the above discussions is that the special appeal No. 107/91 succeeds and the writ petitions fail. Consequently, the special appeal is allowed and the writ petitions (as detailed in Schedule-A) are dismissed. It is directed that a fresh year-wise vacancy list, if not already made, shall be made within 3 months from today for the period from 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1993 and the examination by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall be conducted within 2 months thereafter. All candidates who have become eligible from 1986 onwards including those who have qualified in the competitive examination of 1986 and have not been selected, will be entitled to appear in the said examination. The Government shall make appointments of the future vacancies from 1986-87 onwards from the candidates who are to be selected in the next examination. No temporary or daily wage appointment shall be made till then. The directions to give employment to all successful candidates of the Examination of 1986 having 37.5% marks or more are quashed. (47). Parties are left to bear their own costs.