JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed in this court by the above-named petitioner in the matter of violation of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India read with the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 and in the matter of appointment of Junior Engineers (Civil) in Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department of the State of Rajasthan. 2. The factual background of this case briefly stated is that the petitioner after passing 3 years diploma course in civil engineering in the year 1985 securing Ist Division with 65% marks, passed AMIE in civil engineering in the year 1990 and thereafter passed diploma course in Rural Technology Development and Management examination held in May, 1990 securing Ist Division with 72.9% and was also awarded first position in Rajasthan in the said examination vide Annexures 1 to 4. The petitioner is thus a highly qualified person having acquired full training in Rural Development Programme and is presently working as Consultant with RIICO as a civil engineer. The petitioner had also acquired experience of working in various establishments and completed one year training in P.W.D. as junior engineer for six months and in irrigation department during famine work as junior engineer. The petitioner had also worked as first class Contractor for 8-9 months. 3. Pursuant to advertisement issued by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan vide Annexure 9, 25 vacancies of junior engineers (civil) in the pay scale of 1400-2600 were advertised by respondent No. 2 and invited applications from respective candidates for the said post for which qualifications required were degree or diploma in civil engineering from a University established by law or qualifications declared equivalent thereto and it was further provided that candidates having two years diploma in Rural Technology Development & Management will given priority for appointment. The petitioner duly applied for the aforesaid post. 4. It has been contended in the writ petition that the above course of Advance Diploma in Rural Technology Development and Management was started in the auspices of Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India a broucher published by Khaitan Polytechnic College, Jaipur giving details of the course placed by the petitioner on the record vide Annexure 10. 4. It has been contended in the writ petition that the above course of Advance Diploma in Rural Technology Development and Management was started in the auspices of Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India a broucher published by Khaitan Polytechnic College, Jaipur giving details of the course placed by the petitioner on the record vide Annexure 10. In this connection it has been submitted that the Government of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh have already given recognition to the aforesaid course vide order, dated 23rd May, 1989. It has been further contended in the writ petition that the petitioner was reliably informed that non-petitioners have prepared a list of selected candidates and have also issued letters of appointments to 22 candidates on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in respect of the aforesaid posts. In spite of the diligence the petitioner could not lay hands on the list of 22 candidates to whom appointment letters had been issued nor the list had been published by the respondents, nor made known to the general public inspite of the best efforts made by petitioner, but it has been given to understand that 22 candidates to whom appointment letters were issued do not possess the qualification of advance diploma in rural technology and development and management as possessed by the petitioner. It has been further contended in the writ petition that the advertisement as referred to above makes explicitly clear that priority will be given by the department to those candidates who are having advance diploma to their credit. The petitioner has further been given to understand that his name is not included in the list of selected candidates notwithstanding the fact that he is better qualified than others and also possessed additional qualification of two years Advance Diploma in Rural Technology Development and Management besides having been awarded first division in entire Rajasthan State vide Annexures 11 to 15 respectively. 5. Mr. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended at the Bar that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was more qualified possessing better academic qualifications as compared to other candidates who have already been selected for appointment on the post of junior engineer, the candidature of the petitioner was ignored by the respondents for reasons best known to them. Mr. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended at the Bar that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was more qualified possessing better academic qualifications as compared to other candidates who have already been selected for appointment on the post of junior engineer, the candidature of the petitioner was ignored by the respondents for reasons best known to them. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar that the petitioner was duly fulfilling all the requisite criteria to junior engineers' selection for 25 posts advertised by the department as required under Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960. Out of the 25 seats, one seat was kept reserved and out of remaining 24 seats, two general candidates did not join while the other two left after joining, thus leaving 22 seats for general category candidates which were filled up by appointing the respective candidates. 6. The petitioner passed 3 years diploma course vide Annexure 1, AMTE degree vide Annexure 2 and also Advance Diploma in Rural Technology Development and Management vide Annexure 3 securing 72.09 percent in aggregate and first rank in Rajasthan State vide Annexure 4 apart from having acquired experience in Government and private Sectors including P.W.D. vide Annexures 5 to 8. The criteria required for appointment on the post of civil engineer (junior) was that the candidate should secure minimum of 65.09% marks in diploma engineering (civil). The petitioner had secured 419 out of total 800 marks in aggregate in Advance Diploma and rural technology development and management examination held in May 1990. It has been further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the selections were to be made in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment And Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 (for short "Rules of 1960") Part III of the Rules of 1960 deals with recruitment, while Rule 12 deals with Academic qualifications required for appointment to the post of junior engineer as per the Schedules to the Rules. The course of advance diploma and rural technology development and management was started by the State of Rajasthan in the auspices of the Central Government to get qualified candidates in the field of rural technology and management, since the junior engineers to be recruited were to be posted in the village panchayats for employment. 7. The course of advance diploma and rural technology development and management was started by the State of Rajasthan in the auspices of the Central Government to get qualified candidates in the field of rural technology and management, since the junior engineers to be recruited were to be posted in the village panchayats for employment. 7. It will be pertinent to make reference to the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960. Vide order dated 26.5.1990 passed by Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department Rajasthan, Jaipur in pursuance of Rules 7 & 12 of the Rules of 1960, the State Government has prescribed the method of recruitment and percentage for filling up the posts in subordinate service of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department as per the schedule appended herewith. The post of junior engineer (JEN) (civil) is a direct recruitment post and has to be filled in from amongst the candidates possessing the degree in civil engineering of an University established by law in India or qualification declared equivalent by the Government or diploma in civil engineering from a recognised institution. This post is to be filled in by hundred percent direct recruitment from amongst the candidates who are having the requisite percentage as may be fixed by the department keeping in view the comparative merit of the respective candidates who may apply and may be found eligible for appointment on the said post apart from their possessing requisite educational qualification. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1960 deals with the procedure for recruitment for JENs to be followed by the Appointing Authority. Sub-rules (4) & (5) provide as under: "Sub-rule (4)-The Appointing Authority shall scrutinise the applications received by him and require as many candidates eligible for appointment under these Rules as seems to him desirable to appear before a Committee for interview. The Committee shall consist of the Head of the Department, Deputy Head of the Department and an officer nominated by the Government. The Head of Department shall preside at all meetings of the Committee." "Sub-rule(5)-The Committee shall prepare a list of the candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the posts, arranged in the order of merit: Provided that the Committee may, to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The Head of Department shall preside at all meetings of the Committee." "Sub-rule(5)-The Committee shall prepare a list of the candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the posts, arranged in the order of merit: Provided that the Committee may, to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. Appointment out of this list may be made in the order of merit within six months from the date on which the original list is prepared: Provided further that the inclusion of a candidate's name in the list confers no right to appointment unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable in all other respects for appointment to the Service." The logical interpretation of the above sub-rule (4) is that the Appointing Authority shall, after scrutinising the applications of the respective candidates, require as many candidates who are found eligible for appointment under the Rules as it appears to be desirable to be appointed, such candidate may be recommended before the Committee for interview. It will also be pertinent to refer to proviso to sub-rule (5) of the Rules of 1960 which specifically mandates that inclusion of a candidate's name in the list by itself does not confer any right for appointment to a post unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied after such an inquiry as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable in all other respects for appointment to the service. This logically means and implies that merely because a candidate has been called for interview by the Appointing Authority or a Committee constityted for that purpose, does not by itself confer any vested right for appointment of a candidate who has been called for interview unless he fulfils all requirements to judge his suitability. Sub-rule(6) of Rule 17 of the Rules 1960 provides that the list prepared by the Committee shall be sent by the Appointing Authority to the Commission, whenever necessary, together with confidential rolls and personal files of the candidates included in it as also of those superseded, if any. 8. Sub-rule(6) of Rule 17 of the Rules 1960 provides that the list prepared by the Committee shall be sent by the Appointing Authority to the Commission, whenever necessary, together with confidential rolls and personal files of the candidates included in it as also of those superseded, if any. 8. It has been further contended in the writ petition that the non- petitioners have prepared a list of selected candidates and also issued letters of appointment to 22 persons on the post of JENs for publishing the said list nor the names of the said candidates who have been appointed have been known to the petitioner but it has been given to understand that 22 candidates who have been issued appointment letters do not possess the qualification of advance diploma in rural technology development and management. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Annexure 9 which is an advertisement published by the department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj as per which the applications were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of Rules of 1960 from eligible candidates for the post of JEN (Civil) for filling in 25 vacancies. In the Column pertaining to educational qualification it has been mentioned specifically that the respective candidates should possess degree or diploma in civil engineering from any recognised University established by law and it will be desirable that the said candidate also possesses advance diploma with two years' practical experience who will be given preference. As per this Advertisement it is not incumbent for a respective candidate who applies for the said post that he must also possess the qualification of advance diploma with two years' practical experience and it also does not imply that if the candidate does not fall within the zone of consideration in terms of his eligibility for appointment on the said post that he shall be given preference over other candidates who do not possess the qualification of advance diploma with two years' practical experience in Rural Technology. It is only desirable and not mandatory condition. Annexure 1 which has been annexed to the petition contains the mark-sheet of the petitioner in 3 years civil engineering course from the education department Rajasthan, Jodhpur, the petitioner secured 65.5.% in aggregate. However in the advance diploma in Rural Technology development and management examination (Annex.3) the petitioner secured 72.9% in aggregate. 9. Annexure 1 which has been annexed to the petition contains the mark-sheet of the petitioner in 3 years civil engineering course from the education department Rajasthan, Jodhpur, the petitioner secured 65.5.% in aggregate. However in the advance diploma in Rural Technology development and management examination (Annex.3) the petitioner secured 72.9% in aggregate. 9. It has been further contended in the writ petition that once the Appointing Authority has incorporated the qualification of advance diploma after approval from the State Government, it becomes requisite qualification under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1960 and preference is to be given to the candidate holding advance diploma and according to the petitioner he was the only candidate amongst others who were selected for appointment as having this additional qualification of advance diploma in Rural Technology. The petitioner has further challenged the action of the non-petitioners is not adhereing to the advertisement criteria and making selections arbitrarily including the merit and higher qualification as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and thus the entire selection seems to have been made on irrelevant considerations and, therefore, is vitiated. In the prayer clause the petitioner has sought direction from this court to the non-petitioners to prepare fresh select list giving priority to the petitioner over other candidates and giving appointment to the petitioner and other such candidates in the first instance to the exclusion of the candidates not having aforesaid additional qualification. The petitioner has sought a direction from this court for quashing the select list already prepared but not published and appointment letters issued in pursuance thereof to non-petitioners Nos. 3 to 24 may be quashed being contrary to the published criteria. 10. In the reply to show cause notice filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, i.e., the State and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, it has been contended that the minimum qualification which is required as per Rule of the Rules of 1960, is diploma/ degree in civil engineering or its equivalent recognised by the State Government and the Advance Diploma course is not essential qualification for it. It has been further contended that it is true that the selected candidates are not possessing the Advance Diploma Course, but even on the basis of merit as well, i.e. the percentage of marks secured by the petitioner qua other candidates, the petitioner had secured less marks in aggregate in AMIE (Civil) as such the petitioner should not be appointed. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this court in Ram Swaroop Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3497/1991 and other connected writ petitions wherein a similar question had arisen for consideration of this Court. This court vide its order, dated 18th July, 1991 while dealing with similar question came to be conclusion, that the petitioners cannot claim an exclusive right of appointment at the cost of more meritorious persons. Interpretation of proviso to Rule 7(3) read with Rule 12 of the Rules also came up for consideration of the court in the said writ petition. It was held that the Rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred upon the Governor by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It was held that these rules have the force of law and have to be followed in making of recruitment and dealing with the service conditions of the employees appointed to the subordinate service post in various Government departments where separate Rules have not been framed for recruitment and conditions of service of the employees. It was further held that it is always open to the Government to decide the question of percentage of recruitment by each method and laid down the qualification for recruitment to the different category of post/posts. It was further held that from the perusal of the record, the petitioners' qualifications, marks secured by them as well as their additional qualifications of advance Diploma in Rural Technology Development and Management and further taking into consideration additional marks secured by the petitioners for the aforesaid qualification, it was revealed that the petitioners do not come in merit so as to become entitled for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement and the petitioners therefore, cannot claim any right to be appointed merely because they possess the additional qualification of Advance Diploma Course in Rural Technology Development and Management. Consequently the writ petitions were dismissed on merits. 11. Consequently the writ petitions were dismissed on merits. 11. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment apart from other judgments which have been cited at the bar by Shri S.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the State, it has been contended that since the petitioner on the basis of the minimum qualification as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1960, does not fall within the zone of consideration, since he secured less percentage as compared to other candidates who have been appointed and since no person less meritorious than the petitioner has been given appointment, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that there has been any discrimination in appointment of other candidates in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. It has been further contended by Shri Mathur that the Rules of 1960 have statutory force having been incorporated in consonance with Article 309 of the Constitution and thus cannot be ignored or overlooked in the matter of appointments in subordinate service of the State. It has been further contended that before issuing the appointment letters to other candidates who have been impleaded as private respondents in the writ petition, i.e., respondent Nos. 3 to 24, the comparative merit of such candidates qua the petitioner was duly considered by the Appointing Authority and since the said other candidates were higher in merit who could not be ignored, the said candidates were issued appointment letters and the petitioner should therefore, have no grievance against such candidates. The contentions advanced by Shri Mathur have been further corroborated by Shri R.D. Rastogi and learned counsel appearing for other candidates who has contended at the bar that there has been no departure from Rules in making appointments and total aggregate in diploma course or degree course was taken into consideration before issuing the appointment letters to other candidates. It has been further contended that the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that only aggregate of final year's marks was taken into consideration by the Appointing Authority, is not well sounded since no appointments have been made contrary to Rules and were made strictly on merits on the basis of percentage secured by respective candidates in their final year examination and not on the basis of marks secured by them in each year of their study of a particular course. 12. 12. I find that the aforesaid observations are fortified by Annexure R.1, dated 26.5.1990 which is an order issued by the department in pursuance of Rules 7 & 12 of the Rules of 1960 as per which the Government had decided to prescribe the method of recruitment and percentage for filling up posts in subordinate service of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan as per the Schedule appended therewith which has already been referred to in the foregoing paras above. 13. In the reply to show cause notice filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6, 8, and 12 it has been specifically contended that mere recommendation given by the Government of India to additional qualification of Advance Diploma does not by itself make the petitioner entitled to seek benefit in appointment and further that the merit list was prepared on the basis of marks secured by each candidate in diploma/degree course and appointments were made pursuant thereto on the post of JEN (Civil). Further there is no provision under the Rules of 1960 to give preferential treatment to those persons who have passed two years' Advance Diploma Course as so contended by the petitioner. In this regard I am of the opinion that the selection made by duly constituted Committee which has strictly adhered to the procedure in making appointments as per the Rules of 1960, it cannot be said to be arbitrary to violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. During the course of hearing I had summoned the record from the concerned department in order to find out as to whether a proper criteria has been adopted in making aforesaid appointments and on perusal of the record I found that the last candidate selected on the basis of percentage of marks, was 75.8% in general category who was obviously higher in merit than the petitioner who had secured 65.9% marks in diploma in civil engineering and hence the petitioner was not within the zone of consideration to be considered for appointment by the Appointing Authority. I am further of the considered opinion that correct and proper procedure has been adopted by the Appointing Authority in the matter of selection of the candidates on the basis of Rules for which both, the degree-holder and diploma-holders were eligible. I am further of the considered opinion that correct and proper procedure has been adopted by the Appointing Authority in the matter of selection of the candidates on the basis of Rules for which both, the degree-holder and diploma-holders were eligible. I am further of the opinion that the perusal of the record fully justifies the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that the Rules were strictly followed and that no person lower in merit than the petitioner was given appointment. 15. In support of contentions advanced at the bar, by Shri Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the following judgments: R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka & anr., AIR 1992 Supreme Court 81, N.K. Batra & others Vs. The Kurukshetra University and others, AIR 1990 P & H. 32, A. Periakaruppan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2303 and Krishna Yadav & anr. Vs. State of Haryana & ors., 1994(4) J.T. (SC) 45 . 16. It has been further contended by Shri Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner, that since without adopting the criteria of short-listing and without holding any interviews, the entire selection is vitiated and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions is to the effect that where promotion/appointments have been made by selection with reference to the special rules and no inconsistency has been found between special and general rules, repeal by implication cannot be inferred. In this regard the Apex Court held in R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka and anr. (supra) that it was for the legislature to choose the method to indicate its intention and the court should not defeat their intention by overlooking the same. In my considered opinion, the ratio of this decision as well as other decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to this case, since I am of the considered opinion that it is not open to this court to substitute its judgment over the well reasoned findings of the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee and I find no fault in the findings of the D.P.C. in the matter of appointments of respective candidates and that the said appointments have been made strictly in accordance with the Rules of 1960 and cannot be faulted on any ground as referred to by the petitioner. 17. 17. In Krishna Yadav and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was regarding arbitrariness in the matter of selection of Taxation Inspectors by the Sub- ordinate Selection Board which was alleged to be vitiated by fraud, nepotism, favourtism and arbitrariness, since the appellants and other like candidates whose performances in the written test and interview were claimed to be excellent though not selected in view of the serious allegations. Matter was referred by the Apex Court to C.B.I. for investigation and accepting the C.B.I.'s report it was held by the Apex Court that the entire selection was vitiated and must be set aside. I am of the considered opinion that this judgment of the Apex Court is not applicable to this case since neither any fraud, arbitrariness or nepotism or favourtism has been alleged against Appointing Authority. 18. In A. Periakaruppan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was regarding admission of the candidates to Medical College. The question was as to whether the classification of backward classes on the basis of castes is within the purview of Article 15(4) of the Constitution if those castes are shown to be socially and educationally backward. It was held by the Apex Court that the Governments decision in this regard is open to the judicial review. I am of the considered opinion that the ratio of this judgment of the Apex Court is neither attracted nor is applicable to this case. 19. In N.K Batra and others Vs. The Kurukshetra University and others : AIR 1990 P. & H. 32, the question which had arisen for consideration of the Division Bench of the High Court was regarding appointment to Regional and State Engineering Colleges of the respective candidates who had applied for admission after passing qualifying examination conducted by CBSC concept and principle of "normalisation" was held discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution. Thus the ratio of this judgment of the High Court is neither attracted nor is applicable to this case. 20. In R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka and another (supra) the question of consideration before the Apex Court involved in the civil appeals was regarding promotion of the candidates by selection. Thus the ratio of this judgment of the High Court is neither attracted nor is applicable to this case. 20. In R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka and another (supra) the question of consideration before the Apex Court involved in the civil appeals was regarding promotion of the candidates by selection. It was held by the Apex Court that since there was no patent in consistency between general and special rules, repealed by implication, cannot be inferred. Thus the ratio of this judgment of the Apex Court is neither attracted nor is applicable to this case. 21. In support of his contentions Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Apex Court, this court as well as other High Courts: 22. University of Delhi Vs. Raj Singh & others, J.T. 1994 (6) SC 1 Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan and others, 1993 Supp.(3) SCC 168 , Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & ors., AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1043 , Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and anr., (1994) 6 SCC 293 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & ors. Vs. Dr. (Miss) Damyanti Dadhich etc. etc., 1983 RLR (Raj.) 473 , State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha and ors., AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2216 , Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors., AIR 1992 Supreme Court 80 , Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupeskumar Sheth and ors. (1984) 4 SCC 27 ) and Union 4 of India Vs. Mohanlal Kapoor. (1973) 2 SCC 836 23. In the matter of Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration before the Apex Court was regarding the interpretation of Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (Rules 5, 11 and Appendix (II) pertaining to recruitment of the Ministerial Staff. It was held by the Apex Court as under : "Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. It was held by the Apex Court as under : "Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination". 24. In State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha and others (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was on a challenge made by the respondents in writ petition before the High Court regarding rules pertaining to Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules as adopted by the State of Haryana (Part C Rule 10). The contention which was raised by the appellant before the Apex Court was that there were sufficient vacancies for appointment on the post of subordinate Judges and since the petitioners were eligible for consideration they should have been appointed. It was held by the Apex Court that the mere fact that appellants had appeared in the examination and qualified the written test, this by itself would not make the candidates eligible for appointment. It was held by the Apex Court that the existence of vacancies does not by itself give legal right to a candidate in select list to be appointed to the post. It was further held as under:- "The examination is for the purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection for appointment comes later. It is open then to the Government to decide how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Govt. The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Govt. had departed from the rules in this respect." It was further held as under : "There is no constraint that the Government shall make an appointment of a Subordinate Judge either because there are vacancies or be- cause a list of candidates has been prepared and is in existence." 25. In Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration before the Apex Court was pertaining to the selection of the University teachers and the relaxation of their minimum required qualifications for appointment. It was held by the Apex Court that unless the advertisement/notification specifically states that the qualifications would be relaxed and also the conditions on which they would be relaxed, any relaxation of the minimum required qualifications would be illegal. It was further held by the Apex Court that the University/Selection Committee must mention in its proceedings of selection the reasons for making relaxations, if any, in respect of each of the candidates in whose favour relaxation is made. 26. In Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and others (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was regarding interpretation of KSCS (direct recruitment by selection Rules, 1973 as enforced by Karnataka University inviting applications for recruitment of the Asstt. Engineers (Civil) and (Mechanical) for P.W.D.). The selections were to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and marks secured in the interview in accordance with the rules. According to the rules the total marks for qualifying examination were kept at 100 and 50 for interview. Additional marks allotted for interview amounted to 33.3% of the total marks. Applications were invited from about 300 candidates. On interpretation of the relevant rules it was held by the Apex Court that since the result of the impugned selection was declared in 1987 and the selected candidates has already joined the post, we do not consider it just and proper to quash the selections on the above ground. Applications were invited from about 300 candidates. On interpretation of the relevant rules it was held by the Apex Court that since the result of the impugned selection was declared in 1987 and the selected candidates has already joined the post, we do not consider it just and proper to quash the selections on the above ground. Further the selections were made according to the Rules of 1973 and this practice has been consistently followed for the last several years and there was no allegation of any mala fide in the matter of impugned selections. Consequently the Apex Court held that since the State Government had already framed the new rules, it was not necessary to quash the earlier rules under which the present selections were made and the Apex Court did not consider it proper to quash the selections which were already in accordance with the earlier rules. 27. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others: (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was on a challenge made by the petitioners to Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Regulations, 1977. The petitioners alleged violation of principles of natural justice and Audi Alteram Partem Rule. It was held by the Apex Court as under: "The process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks under Regulation 104(3) does not attract the principles of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about adverse civil consequences to the examinees in involved. The principles of natural justice cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners. These principles involved in the audi alteram partem rule cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits so as to make it applicable to the "twilight zone of mere expectations", however great they may be." The Apex Court laid down the above proposition of law while relying on its earlier judgment in Union of India Vs. These principles involved in the audi alteram partem rule cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits so as to make it applicable to the "twilight zone of mere expectations", however great they may be." The Apex Court laid down the above proposition of law while relying on its earlier judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal Kapoor (supra) = (1974) 1 SCR 797 ) . It was further held by the Apex Court as under: "The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners. As succinctly put by Mathew, J. in his judgment in the Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor, it is not expedient to extend the horizon of natural justice involved in the audi alteram partem rule to the twilight zone of mere expectations, however great they might be. The challenge levelled against the validity of clause (3) of Regulation 104 based on the plea of violation of natural justice, was therefore, rightly rejected by the High Court". 28. In M.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was regarding the fixation of minimum eligibility criteria which is fixed by the statute itself where the selection board can fix higher criteria for calling candidate for viva voce particularly when number of applicants are disproportionately higher in comparison to the number of posts to be filled up. It was held by the Apex Court that short listing of candidate is a part of selection process which does not result in altering the minimum qualification which evidently implies that if the candidate does not possess the minimum requisite qualification then it is not incumbent upon the Appointing Authority to appoint such candidate. It was held by the Apex Court that short listing of candidate is a part of selection process which does not result in altering the minimum qualification which evidently implies that if the candidate does not possess the minimum requisite qualification then it is not incumbent upon the Appointing Authority to appoint such candidate. It was further held by the Apex Court as under : "This decision regarding short-listing the number of candidates who have applied for the post must be based not on any extraneous consideration, but only to aid and help the process of selection of the best candidates among the applicants for the post in question. This process of short-listing shall not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria given in statutory rules of prospectus. In substance and reality, this process of short-listing is part of the process of selection. Once the applications are received and the Selection Board or the Commission applies its mind to evolve any rational and reasonable basis, on which the list of applicants should be short-listed, the process of selection commences. The Selection Board or the Commission has to decide as to what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidates from amongst the applicants. In most of the services, screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the number of the candidates who have to be called for interview. Such screening tests or written tests have been provided in the concern statutes or prospectus which govern the selection of the candidates. But where the selection is to be made only on basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview." 29. The ratio of all the aforesaid decisions particularly with reference to the judgments of the Apex Court is to the effect that unless the advertisement/notification specifically states that the qualifications would be relaxed and also the conditions on which it would be relaxed, any relaxation of the minimum required qualification would be illegal as so observed by the Apex Court in the matter of Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra). University of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra). I am of the considered opinion, likewise it was not open for the DPC/Selection Committee to have relaxed criteria of minimum required percentage since any relaxation of the minimum required qualification would be contrary to the Rules of 1960, since no candidate lower in merit than the petitioner has been appointed nor any relaxation of the minimum required percentage as so fixed by the DPC in making appointments on the post of JEN (Civil) was possible in this case. 30. Likewise the propositions of the Apex Court in the matter of University of Delhi Vs. Raj Singh & Ors . (supra) is also to the same effect that the regulations under Section 26 of the UGC Act prescribing qualifications required of a person to be appointed on the teaching staff of the University Institutions affiliated to it were valid and mandatory and the Delhi University was under obligation to comply with the same. It was further held by the Apex Court that the said regulations do not impinge upon the power of the University to select its teachers and the University's autonomy is not entrenched upon by the said regulations which are intended to have the widest possible application to served the purpose intended, namely, to ensure that all applicants for the posts of lecturers must establish that they possess the proficiency required for lecturers in all Universities in the country. 31. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having examined their rival claims and contentions and relevant documents placed on the record and also the propositions of law laid down by the Apex Court as referred to above, I am of the considered opinion that the petition is devoid of any merit and that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. I am also of the opinion that there is neither any violation of statutory rules nor violation of principles of natural justice. I am further of the opinion that there can be compromise, deviation or departure from the qualifications and the requisite criteria regarding minimum percentage which may be fixed by the Appointing Authority in the matter of appointments of the candidates after judging their comparative merits. I am further of the opinion that there can be compromise, deviation or departure from the qualifications and the requisite criteria regarding minimum percentage which may be fixed by the Appointing Authority in the matter of appointments of the candidates after judging their comparative merits. It is always open to the Appointing Authority to fix the minimum qualification in making such appointments particularly when large number of candidates have applied for the post and assessment has to be made on the basis of final year's marks obtained by the individual candidates and since the said criteria was validly adopted by the Appointing Authority no discrimination can be alleged in the matter of appointments against the Appointing Authority. I am further of the considered opinion that once having participated in the process of selection and having been not qualified for appointment on the basis of comparative merit of the petitioner qua other candidates who have already been appointed, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the process of selection on the ground of being non-suited, the petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. 32. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and consequently the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******