JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as a Teacher Grade III in pursuance to the selections made on the posts advertised vide Advertisement No. 8/95 contained in Annexure R. 1 to the writ petition. 2. Petitioner, being eligible as per the said advertisement, had applied for the said post, he was interviewed and his name appeared in the select list. However, he could not be offered appointment for the reason that the certificates submitted by him, which had been issued by Kanpur University and Oudh University, Faizabad, could not be got verified and before they could be vertified, the select list, prepared in pursuance to the said advertisement, expired on 31-8-1996. The instant writ petition has been filed on 22-12-1996. i.e., after about four months of lapsing the select list. Mr. Vijay Bishnoi has raised a preliminary objection that no relief can be granted in this petition as the select list had expired before filing the writ petition. 3. As per the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules"), the select list prepared for Teachers Grade III would expire at the end of the Academic Session. i.e., 30th June of each year. However, it appears that due to special reasons it has been mentioned in the advertisement itself that the select list would expire on 31-8-1996. 4. In J. Ashok Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996 (3) JT 225 , the Apex Court has held that once the selection process is over, the Writ Court should not interfere on mere irregularities. In State of Bihar v. Mohammed Kalimuddin, AIR 1996 SC 1145 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case of appointment of teachers in the Government Basic Schools and held that there can be no justification to interfere with the selection process after the select list has lapsed on the expiry of the period provided under the statute. In State of Bihar v. Mohammed Kalimuddin, AIR 1996 SC 1145 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case of appointment of teachers in the Government Basic Schools and held that there can be no justification to interfere with the selection process after the select list has lapsed on the expiry of the period provided under the statute. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P.v. Harish Chandra, AIR 1996 SC 2173 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under at page 1845 (of LIC) : "This being the position and in view of the statutory rules contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules, we really failed to understand how the High Court could issue the impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4-4-1987 and the list no longer survived after one year and the rights, if any of persons including in the list, did not subsist ............ it is difficult for us to sustain the direction given by the High Court, since, admittedly, the life of the select list prepared on 4-4-1987 had expired long since and the respondents, who claimed their right to be appointed on the basis of such list, did not have a subsisting right on the date they approach the High Court." The same view had been taken in D. Surinder Singh Jamval v. State of J&K, 1996 (9) SCC 619 . 5. Mr. Mridul, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that verification of the documents, issued by the said Universities, by the respondents was beyond the control of the petitioner and he should not suffer for the fault of the respondents and if they could not verify the same within the time then in such an eventuality the petitioner ought to have been offered appointment subject to verification. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court, in Mahendra Singh v. Zila Parishad, Jalore, 1994 (1) Raj LR 721 , has issued direction to take action against the Authorities if they offer appointment without verifying the documents as in a large number of cases, persons had obtained employment by misrepresentation on the basis of forged documents. Mr. Mr. Bishnoi has further submitted that now the Rules have been amended to the effect that appointment may be given subject to verification of the certificate etc. 6. Mr. Mridul, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Court has power to interfere in a case like the instant on equity as grave injustice has been done to the petitioner. The averment made by Mr. Mridul seems to be very attractive but hollow in substance for the reason that the Court cannot pass an order or issue direction for violating the statutory provisions. 7. In Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd., 1996 (4) SCC 453 : ( AIR 1996 SC 3285 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under at (page 3287 of AIR) : "Yet the question is whether it is permissible for the High Court to direct the authorities under the Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision. We do not think it is, even while acting under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The power conferred by Arts. 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law .............. May-be the High Court or a Civil Court is not bound by the said provisions but the authorities under the Act are. Nor can there be any question of the High Court clothing the authorities with its power under Art. 226 or the power of a Civil Court. No such delegation or conferment can ever be conceived." 8. Similarly, in Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra, 1997 (10) SCC 264 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : "It is settled legal position that a mandamus cannot be issued to violate the law or to act in violation of the law. In this case, the direction issued by the High Court tantamounts to a direction to the appellant to appoint the respondents as per the order issued by the Chancellor, in violation of the Act. The mandamus was, therefore, clearly illegal." 9. In the instant case, as the writ petition has been filed subsequent to the lapse of the select list, the Court is restrained to issue any direction. 10. The mandamus was, therefore, clearly illegal." 9. In the instant case, as the writ petition has been filed subsequent to the lapse of the select list, the Court is restrained to issue any direction. 10. In view of the above, I find no force in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******