JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed in this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of alleged violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India read with Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1967"). 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is graduate in B.E. (Civil) from Engineering College, Kota passed in the year 1987. Respondents issued a notification, dated 31.7.1987 inviting applications for the post of Junior Engineer from Degree- holders as well as Diploma-holders. The details of the vacancies which were advertised are as under 1. Junior Engineer, Degree (Civil) -230 posts 2. Junior Engineer, Degree (Mech.) - 16 posts 3. Junior Engineer, Diploma (Civil) - 460 posts 4. Junior Engineer, Diploma (Mech.) -32 posts. The essential qualification prescribed for the aforesaid posts is Degree/Diploma in Civil/Mechanical Engineering. The said Notification was published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 31st July, 1987 vide Annexure 1. Since the petitioner fulfilled the requisite qualification as per the Notification, dated 31st July, 1987 and as such he applied against the vacancy of Junior Engineer (Civil) being a degree-holder as against 230 posts advertised in the aforesaid Notification. 3. It has been contended in the writ petition that pursuant to the petitioners application, respondent No. 2 sent an interview letter dated 19.1.88 to the petitioner for appearing in the interview slated for 5th February, 1988 for the post of junior engineer (civil) degree-holder. In pursuance of the interview letter the petitioner appeared before the respondent for interview on the said date and the result of the interview was declared by the respondents vide office order dated 21st August, 1988. The name of the petitioner was shown at serial number 233 on the merit list vide Annexure 3. Pursuant to the above, the Chief Engineer (Irrigation) (respondent No. 2) vide telegram dated 6th November, 1989 asked the petitioner to send his consent for working on the post of junior engineer which should be sent within 7 days, failing which the order will be deemed to be cancelled. The confirmation of the telegraphic message dated 6th November, 1989, as referred to above, was sent vide Annexures 4 and 5. 4. The confirmation of the telegraphic message dated 6th November, 1989, as referred to above, was sent vide Annexures 4 and 5. 4. In pursuance of the above, the petitioner immediately sent his acceptance for appointment as junior engineer on 7th November, 1989 telegraphically that confirmation of the call letter which was received in the office of the respondent on 8th November, 1989 vide Annexure 6. It has been further contended in the writ petition that respondent gave appointments to the selected candidates upto serial number 311 vide office order, dated 22.11.1988 vide Annexure 7 but no appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner till date from amongst the candidates whose names are appeared in the selection list-dated 21.8.1988. Not only this, the respondents gave appointments to Diploma holders against post of junior engineers (civil), degree-holders and also to non-selected persons. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid arbitrary attitude of the respondents, the petitioner. gave a legal notice vide Annexure 8 for demand of justice on 20.10.1990 to which no response has been received by the petitioner till date. 5. It was contended at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of junior engineer (civil) against the vacancies of the degree- holders for which the petitioner is fully qualified, is arbitrary, un-reasonable and in violation of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in terms of the Notification, dated 31.7.1987 published by the respondents in Rajasthan Patrika of the said date, the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for appointment on the post of junior engineer (civil) and it is for this reason that he was placed in the merit list at serial No. 233 as per the office order, dated 21.8.1988, the respondents issued appointment order to the candidates upto serial number 311 in the merit list; whereas no appointment order was issued to the petitioner who was within the zone of consideration and whose name was at serial number 233 in the merit list, till date. It is this impugned action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of junior engineer (civil) which has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petitioner, being discriminatory and in violation of Art. 16(1) of the Constitution of India which guarantees equality of opportunity in the matter of employment and protection against discrimination in the matter of employment. Since the appointment order was issued to the candidates in the merit list upto serial number 311 and since the name of the petitioner was placed at serial number 233 in the merit list, the petitioner should have been given appointment by the respondents in all fairness. It has been further contended at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has adopted pick and choose formula in giving appointments on the post of junior engineer (civil) against the quota of 230 posts reserved for degree-holders against which diploma holders were given preference by ignoring the claim of degree holders. It has been further contended that it is well established principle of law that qualification for a particular post should be based on rational differential within the meaning of Art. 16 of the Constitution but when a qualification has been prescribed for a particular post, the same cannot be obliterated by posting those candidates who were having the necessary qualification as against those who possessed the requisite qualification and as such the petitioner has a legal right to be appointed as junior engineer against the vacancies of the degree-holders quota as referred to above. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the arbitrary action of the respondents in not offering appointment to the petitioner notwithstanding the offer of appointment which was made in only 1989 and after the offer having been accepted by the petitioner and its acceptance having been conveyed to the respondents, there was no justification for the respondents to have denied the appointment to the petitioner. 6. In the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 paras 1 to 8 of the writ petition have been admitted by the respondents. 6. In the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 paras 1 to 8 of the writ petition have been admitted by the respondents. In reply to para 8 it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that appointment to the selected candidates was done directly in accordance with merit upto serial number 154 and the petitioners name stands entered at serial number 233, the names of persons mentioned at serial number 310 and 311 belong to SC/ST quota, thus no general candidate was given appointment for the select list beyond the merit assigned to the petitioner. Hence it is wrong to say that non- selected persons were given appointment but the appointments were made strictly in accordance with merit from the select list. It has been further stated in the reply to the grounds by the respondents that appointments at serial numbers 310 and 311 were given vide order, dated 6.11.1989 and 9.11.1989 to SC/ST candidates under reservation and backlog quota only, hence the writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. Since the appointments to the general candidates were given only upto serial number 154 of the select list vide order dated 24.3.89 and from serial number 188 to 311 were given appointments against the reserved quota from SC/ST to complete the backlog quota as such no appointment orders were made in favour of any general candidate beyond serial number 233 assigned to the petitioner. The respondents have further contended in the reply to ground that there are no vacancies available with the department for appointment beyond serial number 154 of general category candidates and it is for this reason that the appointment could not he given to the petitioner. 7. In the re-joinder to the reply filed by the respondents, it has been contended by the petitioner that the respondents have obviously travelled beyond the scope of employment notice to appoint candidates belonging to SC/ST communicates over and above the `reservation' permissible on the advertised posts. It is further contended that the respondents having given categorical assurance to the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled for appointment on the post of junior engineer and that the respondents are now estopped from withdrawing the offer of employment given to the petitioner. It is further contended that the respondents having given categorical assurance to the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled for appointment on the post of junior engineer and that the respondents are now estopped from withdrawing the offer of employment given to the petitioner. It has been further contended that it is well settled legal position that once a candidate is selected and his name is included in the select list, he gets a right for appointment. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after having examined their rival claims and contentions, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner had no vested right to claim appointment for the post of junior engineer (civil), since from the perusal of the record the petitioner has made incorrect statement that appointments were given upto serial number 311; whereas the name of the petitioner was at serial number 233 and hence he could not have been given appointment from amongst category of general candidates. The perusal of the Advertisement, dated 31.7.1987 (Annex. 1) clearly reveals that 230 posts were advertised from amongst the candidates to be selected possessing the qualification of degree holder (civil) and 16 candidates were to he selected from amongst the candidates of the degree holders (mechanical) engineering graduates. 460 posts were advertised of junior engineers Diploma (civil) and 32 posts were advertised for junior engineers, Diploma (Mech.). The said Advertisement also carries the note to the effect that appointments are temporary and the appointments shall also be made from the category of SC/ST candidates in accordance with Roster prescribed for such candidates. 9. I am further of the considered opinion that appointments to the candidates as against from amongst category of SC/ST were given at serial numbers 310 & 311 in terms of order, dated 6.11.1989 and 9.11.1989 under the reservation and backlog quota only and not to the candidates belonging to the general category as so incorrectly stated by the petitioner in the writ petition. The perusal of the reply filed by the respondents clearly reveals that appointments from the category of general candidates were made upto serial number 154 vide order, dated 24.3.89 and no appointments were made beyond the said figure to other general candidates of the general category, hence the question of the petitioner having not been given appointment, since his name was placed in the merit list at serial number 311, does not arise. 10. It is well settled proposition of law that no candidate has a vested right for appointment and has no legal right to claim appointment, but a candidate has only right to be considered for appointment and it is up to the Appointing Authority to give appointment or not as the same depends upon its subjective satisfaction considering the merits and suitability of each candidate concerned and also keeping in view the number of vacancies available for the said post. 1 am fortified in my observations from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Gurdayal Singh v. State of Punjab and others : 1982(1) SLR 651. This was a case concerning appointments of I.A.S. officers and the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition was against non-inclusion of his name in the I.A.S. select list. It was held by the Apex Court that the Selection Committee is an independent body and there is nothing on the record to arrive at the conclusion that the decision of the selection committee was not properly arrived at on consideration of the merits of the case and was in any way otherwise motivated. It was further held by the Apex Court that the petitioner cannot claim to the included in the select list as a matter of right and the petition was consequently dismissed. Hence I am of the considered opinion that notwithstanding the fact that the name of the petitioner had appeared in the select list, he has got no vested and legal right to claim appointment and he has only a right to be considered for appointment subject to the availability of the vacancies for the post of junior engineer (civil) and since no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner, he cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. 11. 11. In the result, the petition has got no merit and hence no interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 12. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had sent his acceptance for appointment as junior engineer (civil) by telegraphic message, dated 7.11.1989 which was followed by confirmation letter received by the respondent on 8.11.1989 and also keeping in view the fact that the name of the petitioner appeared in the select list at serial number 233 he has a right to be considered for appointment to the post of junior engineer (civil) by the Appointing Authority as and when the said post is advertised, the petitioner may apply for the same and in the event of the petitioner applying for the said post, the respondents are directed to consider his candidature for appointment for the post of junior engineer (civil) if he fulfills the requisite qualifications and is otherwise eligible to be considered for appointment within the zone of consideration in accordance with law.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******