JUDGMENT 1. - The District Education Officer (Boys Institution), Nagaur advertised 30 posts of Lab Assistant Gr. III for the year 1993-94. The petitioner also applied for the post as a girl candidate. She was found suitable and was called for interview on 7.6.1993. The merit list of the selected candidates was published on the same day in which the petitioner's name was shown at S. No. 16. Thereafter three girl candidates of Scheduled Caste category were given appointment up to 7.3.1994. 2. The petitioner's case is that no girl candidate of general category, to which she belongs was given appointment against the 15 posts of girl candidates though there were clear directions of the Education Minister issued on 19.3.1994 that all the vacancies of Lab. Assistants advertised up to 31.3.1994 must be filled up. It has been averred that the petitioner's name stands at S. No. 5 of the merit list of the girl candidates and she is entitled to be appointed a Lab Assistant Gr. III. A direction has been sought for her appointment on the post. 3. In the reply filed by the respondents, it has not been denied that 30 posts of Lab Assistants were advertised and out of them 15 posts were for the girls and 15 for the boys. It has also not been denied that the petitioner stood at S. No. 16 in the merit list, and that no girl candidate of general category had been given appointment against 15 posts advertised. It has been averred that only 6 posts were vacant and three of them were reserved for Scheduled Caste which have been filled up and the remaining three posts, meant for the general category of candidates, could not be filled up for two reasons; first, one post was kept vacant in pursuance of the direction given by the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3405/91, Akhil Rajasthan Rajya Prayogshala Sewak Sangh v. State of Rajasthan and second, two posts were kept vacant in pursuance of the direction given by the director dated 10.9.1992. It has been further averred that there were four girl candidates holding higher seniority in the merit list and as only three posts were available to the general category the petitioner did not get a chance of appointment. It has been further averred that there were four girl candidates holding higher seniority in the merit list and as only three posts were available to the general category the petitioner did not get a chance of appointment. It has also been averred that as the merit list was, valid up to 31.3.1994, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner it has been averred that the respondents have not deliberately produced the register of determination of vacancies and Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 requires determination of vacancies every year and therefore there is no reason to accept the respondent's contention that there were only six vacancies available when the notification Annexure 1 was issued. It has also been stated that the respondents have again advertised 25 vacancies of Lab Assistants on 18.4.1994 which belies the plea of respondents that only 3 vacancies were available in 1993-94. 5. Mr. Singhvi, vehemently contended that 15 vacancies were advertised for the girl candidates vide notification Annexure 1 and appointments have been given only to three girl candidates of the reserved category, and the petitioner and other girl candidates have been deprived of right of appointment from the select list by the arbitrary action of the respondents. Relying on the cases of Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, 1986(4) SCC 268 and Madanpuri v. Dungarpur Banswara Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 1991(1) RLR 511 , Mr. Singhvi canvassed that a direction should be given for the appointment of the petitioner even if some candidates higher in merit have not approached this Court. In this connection he pointed out that vide order dated 25.4.1994 this Court had directed for keeping one post vacant and therefore her appointment will not create any problem, Mr. Singhvi submitted that in 1994 the respondents again advertised 25 posts which fact indicates that 30 vacancies notified in 1993 were available for appointment. 6. Mr. Jangid, on the other hand, contended that no girl candidate lower in merit of the general category has been given appointment and therefore the petitioner does not have a right of appointment, Mr. Jangid contended that on selection a candidate does not have indefeasible right of appointment. 7. I have given the arguments my thoughtful consideration. 6. Mr. Jangid, on the other hand, contended that no girl candidate lower in merit of the general category has been given appointment and therefore the petitioner does not have a right of appointment, Mr. Jangid contended that on selection a candidate does not have indefeasible right of appointment. 7. I have given the arguments my thoughtful consideration. There cannot be any dispute in this legal position that a candidate by selection does not get an indefeasible right of appointment to the post for which he had applied as the notification merely amounts to an invitation to the qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. It has also to be accepted that the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies but at the same time it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision of the State not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. 8. In the instant case, as already pointed out, 30 posts were advertised and out of that 15 posts were for the girl candidates and no girl candidate from the general category has been given appointment. The reasons assigned by the respondents for not appointing girl candidates of general category are either non-existent or misconceived. 9. Regarding the direction given by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3405/91 for one post, it is relevant to refer the document Annexure R-1. The order is dated 14.6.1991 wherein it was directed that if the direct recruitment is held for the post of Lab Assistant, 25% vacancies shall not be filled and direct recruitment shall be restricted to 75% vacancies only. It was no where directed that one post shall be kept vacant. The order was that the direct recruitment shall be restricted to 75% vacancies only. As already stated the vacancies notified were 30 in number. There was no legal hurdle in filling up at least 22 posts by direct recruitment. Thus, the cause of not filling the post was non-existent. 10. Coming to the second ground it is relevant to refer to document Annexure R-2, a letter dated 10.9.1992 by the Director Education asking the Dist. There was no legal hurdle in filling up at least 22 posts by direct recruitment. Thus, the cause of not filling the post was non-existent. 10. Coming to the second ground it is relevant to refer to document Annexure R-2, a letter dated 10.9.1992 by the Director Education asking the Dist. Education Officers not to fill up the posts of any vocational education Lab Assistants. In the instant case, the posts advertised were not with regard to the vocational education and therefore there was no impediment in the appointment of the petitioner. 11. It is further to be noticed that immediately after 31.3.1994 the respondents again advertised 25 vacancies of the Lab Assistant Gr. III. If the appointments could not be made to the posts out of the select list Annexure I because of the orders Annexure R/1 and R/2 there could not be any occasion to advertise as many as 25 posts in 1994. It is obvious that the causes of non-filling of the posts by 31.3.1994 were non-existent and misconceived. The action of the respondents in denying the appointments to the candidates in the select list Annexure 3 was obviously arbitrary. 12. The fact remains that the petitioner stood at S. No. 5 in the merit list of the girl candidates. If all the posts advertised had been filled the petitioner was bound to get the appointment. The petitioner cannot be denied relief on the ground that the select list was valid up to 31.3.1994. The petitioner was vigilant of her rights and approached this Court on 31.3.1994. In the case of Miss. Neelima (supra) there was almost a similar fact situation. In that case the petitioner was one of the candidates selected and was not given appointment as Subordinate Judge, in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). There were some candidates higher in merit but they had not approached the Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the appointment to the post. The case applies on all fours to the instant case. As already stated, in instant case also as in the case of Miss Neelima (supra) post has already been kept vacant in pursuance of the order of this Court. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The case applies on all fours to the instant case. As already stated, in instant case also as in the case of Miss Neelima (supra) post has already been kept vacant in pursuance of the order of this Court. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lab Assistant Grade III and if she is found suitable, she be given appointment within two months from today. Her appointment shall relate back to the date 30.6.1993, the date on which one girl candidate was given appointment to the post. She will get the monetary benefits from the date she joins on the posts.Petition allowed. *******