Honble YADAV, J. – The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a relief for direction to the respondents to appoint him as a Junior Accountant against the reserved quota for Ministerial Staff as envisaged under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Sub-ordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1963). (2). Brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as `the R.P.S.C.) advertised 750 vacant posts of Junior Accountants vide Advertisement No. 4/90-91 dated 17.11.90. Prior to advertisement, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 9.4.1979 and was confirmed on the said post on 29.1.981. At the time when the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Accountant in pursuance of Advertisement No. 4/90-91, he was working as an ad hoc Upper Division Clerk and was posted at Government Secondary School, Village Adarsh Doongari, District Sirohi. A typed copy of the promotion order dated 2.2.1990 is filed along with the writ petition and is marked as Annex. 1. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Accountant under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963 being a member of service of Ministerial Staff as postulates under the said Rules. It is also averred in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that in the month of January, 1990, the petitioner went to Ajmer to enquire about the mark-sheet from the office of the R.P.S.C. where he saw a waiting list of the candidates for appointment to the post of Junior Accountants on the Notice Board, in which, his name was shown at S.No. 245(R). (3). After service of notice a return has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 stating therein that against the advertisement of 750 posts of Junior Accountants, the R.P.S.C. prepared a select list of 742 candidates for the said post. The names of 540 candidates were declared under the main select list, out of which, 16 candidates were found ineligible, hence, names of 524 candidates were recommended by the R.P.S.C. for appointment. The names of 540 candidates were declared under the main select list, out of which, 16 candidates were found ineligible, hence, names of 524 candidates were recommended by the R.P.S.C. for appointment. Name of one candidate was included in the main select list, hence, in the said list 525 candidates were recommended by the R.P.S.C. In the reserved list, 113 candidates were included, out of which, three candidates were not found eligible, hence, names of 110 candidates were recommended in the reserved select list by the R.P.S.C. (4). It is also averred in paragraph 4 of the reply that vide order dated 16.8.89, the State Government notified a Ban on appointment of general candidates against the vacancies earmarked for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes under the direct recruitment, therefore, no candidate from General Category could be appointed against the reserved quota earmarked for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. It is also averred in paragraph 5 that out of 750 posts of Junior Accountants, 141 posts were earmarked for Scheduled Castes and 111 posts were earmarked for Scheduled Tribes candidates, 34 posts were earmarked for physically handicapped per- sons and 93 posts of Junior Accountants were earmarked for ministerial staff. (5). Arithmetical facts have been averred in paragraph 8 of the reply to the effect that names of 113 candidates were called from the reserved select list because these vacancies occurred on account of giving promotion in the same year. It is also stated that 112 candidates have been given appointment from the reserved select list as form of one candidate was not received. It is also stated in the said paragraph that on account of writ petitions No. 4201 of 1990 and 4196 of 1990 which were decided on 23.1.91, 14 names of the ministerial staff category were added in compliance of the order of this Court dated 23.1.91. It is alleged that names of 14 persons were called from the reserved select list for giving appoint- ment to the ministerial staff category against 12 1/2% reserved quota prescribed for them. It is also stated in the reply by the answering -respondents that no one has been appointed from the reserved select list below to the petitioner, therefore, in the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (6). No rejoinder has been filed against the counter affidavit filed by the ans- wering respondents. It is also stated in the reply by the answering -respondents that no one has been appointed from the reserved select list below to the petitioner, therefore, in the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (6). No rejoinder has been filed against the counter affidavit filed by the ans- wering respondents. It is to be noticed that for the reasons best known to the answering-respondents, reply has not been filed parawise. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. (8). It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.K. Parihar that since the name of the petitioner was shown at S.No.245(R) in the select list of the candidates and his name was empanelled, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed as a Junior Accountant within the meaning of sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963. (9). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the answering- respondents refu- ted the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and it is urged before me that a person whose name finds place in the select list, does not on account of being empanelled, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. (10). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid rival contentions raised at the bar. In my humble opinion, the rival contentions raised at the bar are based on arithmetical calculations borne out from the writ petition and counter version disclosed by the answering-respondents in the present writ petition. (11). For deeper understanding of the controversy involved, it would be expedient to reproduce mandatory provisions postulated under Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973, which reads thus :– ``6. Method of Recruitment : Recruitment to the Service shall be made in the manner specified in Column 3 of the Schedule by recruitment in accordance with Part IV of these Rules : Provided that – (i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (iii) Provided also further that 12 1/2% of the posts of Junior Accountants to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the Ministerial Staff of all the departments of the Government holding a post of the Cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the Rules. This reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year. (12). Indisputably, the R.P.S.C. advertised 750 vacant posts of Junior Accountants and according to the reservation provided under Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963 - 12 1/2% of the posts of Junior Accountants to be filled in by direct recruitment from amongst the ministerial staff to which category the petitioner belongs. According to Arithmetical calculation, out of 750 posts advertised by the R.P.S.C. only 93 posts of Junior Accountants are to be filled in amongst the ministerial staff. It is categorically stated in paragraph 6 of the reply that in the main select list, 93 candidates amongst the ministerial staff have been appointed. Then there- after by filing a writ petition, again 14 candidates amongst the ministerial staff were appointed on the basis of the decision rendered by this Court on 23.1.91. It is not understandable that if Arithmetically under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963, only 12 1/2% of the total posts of Junior Accountants are required to be filled in by direct recruitment amongst the ministerial staff then how 14 further posts were added to reserve quota of the ministerial staff out of 750 posts of Junior Accountants, while 93 posts had already been filled in; in the main select list. (13). Be that as it may. In paragraph 12 of the reply, the answering-respondents have categorically stated that no persons below to the petitioner in the reserved list, have been appointed, is sufficient to negative the claim of the petitioner. (13). Be that as it may. In paragraph 12 of the reply, the answering-respondents have categorically stated that no persons below to the petitioner in the reserved list, have been appointed, is sufficient to negative the claim of the petitioner. Irrespective of the fact that according to sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963, only 93 posts of Junior Accountants were required to be filled in amongst the mini- sterial staff yet instead of 93, it appears that 107 posts of Junior Accountants have been filled in amongst the ministerial staff against the mandatory provisions contemplated under Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963 yet the petitioners name could not be included in the reserved select list as his name was much below at S.No. 245(R) in the waiting list, therefore, his claim to be appointed as Junior Accountant against the reserved quota for ministerial staff as envisaged under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the said Rules does not arise and as such it is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. (14). Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.K. Parihar advanced an alternative argument that if it is not possible to appoint the petitioner as Junior Accountant against the reserved quota of the ministerial staff as envisaged under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963 even then he is entitled to be appointed as Junior Accountant treating him general candidate whose name found place in the select list and being empanelled. Although the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is attractive but it is fallacious, therefore, it is rejected for the rea- sons given hereinbelow. (15). To my mind, empanelment is at best can be said to be fulfilment of the eligibility condition for the purpose of appointment but the empanelment itself does not confer a vested right to the petitioner to be appointed as Junior Accountant. Secondly, the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim two benefits together i.e. one against the reserved ministerial staff quota as postulated under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the said Rules and other as a general candidate simply because of empanelment that too after more than six years. Secondly, the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim two benefits together i.e. one against the reserved ministerial staff quota as postulated under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the said Rules and other as a general candidate simply because of empanelment that too after more than six years. It is to be noticed in this regard that sub-rule (iii) of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1963 clearly provides that the Commission may to the extent of 50% advertised vacancies keep names of suitable candi- dates on the reserve list. Name of such candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in the order of merit to the Appointing Authority within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Appointing Authority. (16). Indisputably, it is clearly averred in paragraph 9 of the reply, which has not been denied by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder that the original list was forwarded by the Commission on 9.1.90, therefore, in view of the mandatory provisions postulated under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1963, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit after expiry of 6 months from 9.1.1990. (17). It is evident from the averments made in the reply, that irrespective of empanelment of the petitioner, he was not found in the order of merit to the candidates who have been appointed by the Appointing Authority, therefore, his claim to be appointed as Junior Accountant treating him as general candidate, is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected. (18). Upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the instant writ petition lacks merit, so, it is hereby dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.