JUDGMENT 1. - In pursuance to the Advertisement dated 6.8.1995 the petitioner being eligible also applied for the post of Teacher Grade III. 2. A panel was prepared by the respondents after scrutinising the application verifying the certificates of the candidates and admittedly the name of the petitioner comes in merit. 3. The only ground on which the petitioner has been denied appointment is that the petitioner was possession the degree of B.Ed. from Kanpur University. However, verification of the degree from Kanpur University could not be received back by the Department till 30th June 1996 when the panel automatically expired. There is no dispute that persons lower in merit in the same panel has been given appointment by the respondents. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the persons lower in merit have been given appointment, the petitioner has also a right for appointment with all consequential benefits from the date persons lower in merit has been given appointment. His contention is that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not getting the verification from the concerned university in time. He has relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Pooran Mal Gujar v. State of Rajasthan & others reported in 1997 (3) WLC page 606. 5. Mr. Vijay Bishnoi counsel for the respondents on the other hand has vehemently argued that in the Advertisement itself it had been clearly mentioned that appointment can be given only after verification from the concerned University. He has further submitted that as per guidelines issued by the Department the post can be kept vacant only till 30th of June of the relevant year and if verification is not received by then the appointment cannot be given. 6. He has further submitted that respondents after preparation of select list, sent Registered Letter dated 9.5.96 to the Registrar, Kanpur University for verification of the decree possessed by the petitioner. Thereafter afferts were made by the Respondent Department to get the verification from the. concerned University. However, no reply was received from the concerned University till 30th of June, 1996 as such appointment could not be given to the petitioner. 7. Thereafter afferts were made by the Respondent Department to get the verification from the. concerned University. However, no reply was received from the concerned University till 30th of June, 1996 as such appointment could not be given to the petitioner. 7. He has further submitted that since there is a clear stipulation in the advertisement as well as in the guidelines and the same having not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the panel automatically stood expired on 30th June 1996 and no relief can be granted by this court in the present writ petition. 8. Mr. Vijay Bishnoi counsel for the respondents have relied on judgment of Apex Court in case of State of Bihar v. Mohammed Katimuddin reported in AIR 1996 SC 1145 and State of UP v. Harish Chand and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2173 and he has also relied on judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the similar circumstances in the case of Prem Dass v. Zila Parishad and other S.B.C. Writ Pet.No.469/97 decided on 21.7.97. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and also gone through the entire material on record the judgments cited by counsel for both the sides. 10. In the present case admittedly the petitioner is in the merit list and persons lower in merit have been given appointment. Panel was prepared in first week of Feb. 1996, whereas, as per admission of respondents themselves the first letter for verification was sent to the concerned University on 9.5.96. The letter dated 9.5.96 filed alongwith the additional affidavit can be presumed as first letter, because there is no reference in the letter regarding any earlier correspondence. 11. Admittedly the panel expired on 30th June 1996. However, there is no explanation on record as to why the concerned authorities took more than two months just for sending the certificate for verification to the concerned University. 12. A candidate has no say or play at all in such verification and the concerned authorities have taken all responsibilities of verification of certificate on themselves. It is always legitimate expectation in the mind of the candidate that in case his name is in merit, the verification of certificate shall be got done by the authorities promptly in time. 12. A candidate has no say or play at all in such verification and the concerned authorities have taken all responsibilities of verification of certificate on themselves. It is always legitimate expectation in the mind of the candidate that in case his name is in merit, the verification of certificate shall be got done by the authorities promptly in time. In such legitimate expectation the petitioner is not expected to challenge such conditions in the Advertisement or in the guidelines. 13. A candidate having come in the merit list, cannot be made to suffer for sheer inaction, negligence or delay on part of the department or the University. In absence of any specific provisions in this regard in the rules even if there are certain guidelines in this regard, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and will further be hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In such matters the respondents could have given appointment on provisional basis subject to the verification of the certificate from the concerned University. 14. Otherwise also such practice may lead to absurd results and also unfair means on part of the concerned officers." Person top in merit can be denied appointment only on the ground of non-verification of certificate/degree in time just be sending degree for verification after considerable delay. The malafides are not required to be alleged but it can always be presumed in such matters. 15. The judgments cited by the counsel for the respondents are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner as per his merit from the date persons lower in merit have been given appointment. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled for salary and other monetary benefits only from the date of joining. Necessary orders should be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.Writ petition allowed. *******