JUDGMENT 1. - Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant Corporation on 8.3.77 on the grounds inter alia that he was earlier employed on the post of Draftsman with the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board from where his services were transferred on deputation to the defendant Corporation. Subsequently plaintiff was absorbed with the Corporation on permanent basis. It has been contended by the respondent plaintiff that on 6.12.76 the Corporation selected certain candidates after screening their respective merits for determining their eligibility for appointment on the post of Chargeman (Mechanical) on the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. In that select list, name of the plaintiff was shown at S.No. 10 in order of merit. This list (Ex.1) was, however, not finalised. From a perusal of order (Ex.2) it is apparent that name of the respondent is at S.No. and the appointments were made on the post of Chargeman on probation basis for a period of two years, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Service (Recruitment & Selection) Rules, 1971, (for brevity, "Rules of 1971") except in the case of candidates at S.No. 1 to 7 in whose cases period of probation was waived. Subsequently, on 4.2.77 meeting of review selection committee was convened by the Corporation for determining the eligibility of the candidates for appointment on the post of Chargeman (Mechanical/Electrical), whose names were recommended earlier vide Ex. 2. Since some of them did not fulfil eligibility condition for appointment on the said post in accordance with the Rules of 1971, the review selection committee, which was accordingly convened by the Corporation for deteriming the eligibility of the candidates, who were earlier recommended for appointment on probation, found that atleast candidates including respondent were not eligible for appointment on the said post as they were found wanting in requisite qualification. Thus, the respondent was considered but not found suitable for appointment.2-3. At this stage, before dealing with contentions advanced at the bar it shall be pertinent to refer to the relevant Rules on the subject, viz. Thus, the respondent was considered but not found suitable for appointment.2-3. At this stage, before dealing with contentions advanced at the bar it shall be pertinent to refer to the relevant Rules on the subject, viz. eligibility condition on possess qualification and the method of recruitment prescribed tor the post of Chargeman (Mechanical/Electrical) in the Technical Branch of the Corporation, which in accordance with the Rules is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by selection. The educational qualification prescribed therein is that the candidate in case of direct recruitment should possess a Degree in Mechanical Engineering and in case of selection on the recommendations of the committee he must posyey- experience of five years as Asstt. Chargeman/Operator/Serviceman, and (2) Diploma in Mechanical Engineering or High School together with a certificate fiorn ITI in any trade or High School with total of 15 years experience in a trade. Since the respondent-employee did not fulfill aforesaid eligibility condition inasmuch as he was neither holding ITI certificate with requisite experience in trade nor he had requisite service with High School together with ITI training certificate, he was educationally not qualified for being considered for appointment and it is precisely in this context that the review selection committee had passed the order dated 4.2.77 (Ex.3), referred to above, and did not recommend the respondent for appointment on the said post.4. Rule 11 of the Rules of 1971 stipulates the procedure for recruitment by selection as follows (1) As soon as it is decided that a certain number of vacancies in the Corporation shall be filled by selection, the Secretary shall prepare a list of all employees of the Corporation eligible for selection in accordance with the qualification given in the Schedule and shall forward it together with the Service Record and statement of particulars of each candidate included in the list of the Selection Committee. (2) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of all the candidates included in the list, interview such of them as they consider necessary and shall select candidates equal to one and half times of the over-all vacancies likely to be filled in by selection and shall arrange their names in order of merit. (3) The Appointing Authority shall make final selection from amongst the candidates considered suitable for appointment to the post by the Selection Committee. (3) The Appointing Authority shall make final selection from amongst the candidates considered suitable for appointment to the post by the Selection Committee. (4) All appointments based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee shall be made (a) by the Secretary on behalf of the Corporation, or (b) by the Officers of the Corporation to the extent of powers of appointment delegated to them. 5. Rule 12 of Rules of 1971 deals with the probation and the powers vested with the Corporation to appoint candidates initially on probation for a period of two years, which can be reduced or waived wholly in the discretion of the Managing Director in a particular case or class of cases.6. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the impugned action of the Corporation in not having recommended his case for appointment on the basis of the recommendations of the review selection committee, sought relief of declaration from the civil court to the effect that the orders dated 6.12.76 by which the respondent was earlier recommended for the post of Draftsman-Electrical and subsequently excluded from final select Ex. 3 dated 4.2.77 be declared null & void on the ground that vested right had accrued on him to the post, since though he was earlier recommended for the appointment on the post and placed him in the selection list but finally to his utter surprise, he was altogether excluded from being appointed on the post vide order dated 4.2.77 (Ann. 3), which the Corporation had no legal right and justification to do so. It has also been averred in the plaint that he fulfilled eligibility condition for appointment and it is only precisely for this reason that he was earlier recommended though not considered for appointment by the review selection committee.7. 3), which the Corporation had no legal right and justification to do so. It has also been averred in the plaint that he fulfilled eligibility condition for appointment and it is only precisely for this reason that he was earlier recommended though not considered for appointment by the review selection committee.7. The Corporation contested the suit by filing written statement while specifically pleading as to the non- fulfillment of the basic eligibility condition relating to the educational qualification and experience, which the plaintiff admittedly did not have as on the date when he applied for being considered for aforesaid post; and the Corporation also claimed privilege under the Rules of 1971 that the plaintiff had no vested right of appointment since a candidate, who does not have basic eligibility condition, cannot claim legal right for his appointment; and merely because his name was recommended earlier, those recommendations do not give any legal right as it is subject to the review by the final selection committee and atleast eight candidates were not found eligible for appointment on aforesaid post. Thus, since no appointment orders were issued, the Corporation was not bound by any such order, which might have been passed earlier.8. Shri Suresh Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation contended that under the Rules of 1971 as per Rule 11 (3), it is necessary that the appointment orders can be issued only by appointing authority from amongst candidates considered suitable for appointment to the post by the selection committee and the appointments were only to be made by the Corporation on the recommendations of the selection committee and not otherwise. It has further been contended that the selection committee, which was constituted earlier for adhoc appointment, was re- constituted again for recruitment in accordance with the procedure provided in the Rules of 1971, and on the basis of fresh recommendations made by the subsequent selection committee, the order dated 4.2.77 (Ann. 3) was issued, whereby earlier orders dated 6.12.76 (Ex.2) was rescinded.9. The aforesaid contentions have been vehemently controverted by Shri S.N. Gupta on behalf of the respondent employee by contending that the vested rights for appointment had accrued on the basis of orders (Ex.1 & Ex.2) and as such, the Corporation had no right or justification to convene fresh selection committee and the plaintiff has got prerogative legal right to continue in the services of the Corporation.10. The questions of law, which arise for consideration are-(1) Whether any indefeasible and vested right arose in favour of the respondent to claim appointment on the post of Chargeman (Mechanical/Electrical) merely on the recommendations of the selection committee which were subsequently reversed, modified and re-called by the review selection committee? (2) Whether the appointing authority does not have a right to convene the review selection committee in view of the Rules of 1971, if the recommendations made earlier by the selection committee recommending certain candidates on a particular post on adhoc basis, are not in conformity with the Rules determining the eligibility conditions and qualifications for appointment? and (3) Whether the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are not open to challenge if they are not found sustainable being not in conformity with the requirement of the Rules of 1971 and, therefore, they deserve to be quashed & set-aside being perverse?11. I have considered the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record so also examined the legal aspect of the case. Prima-facie, I am of the view that no individual can claim vested right of appointment to a particular post if he does not fulfil basic eligibility condition of qualification relating to the appointment for a particular post.12. From a perusal of the Rules of 1971, it is apparent that the appointing authority shall make final selection only from amongst those candidates, who are considered suitable for appointment on a particular post on the recommendations of the selection committee as per Rule 11 of the said Rules. Hence, merely because name of a particular candidate appeared in the select list prepared for adhoc appointment earlier, in my view, it cannot give any vested right to claim appointment on the said post since those recommendations for selection are given subject to review by the final selection committee in accordance with the Rules. It is always open to the selection committee to determine/review the basic eligibility condition for appointment as prescribed in the Schedule appended to the Rules, as well as before recommending a candidate for appointment on a particular post on any of the post prescribed for Technical Branch of the Corporation. For the post of Chargeman (Mechanical/Electrical), the basic eligibility conditions prescribed in the Rules have already been referred to above. For the post of Chargeman (Mechanical/Electrical), the basic eligibility conditions prescribed in the Rules have already been referred to above. Since the respondent plaintiff did not fulfil eligibility conditions for appointment, in my view, the selection or review selection committee was within its right and powers not to recommend the respondent employee for appointment on the said post as he was found wanting in basic qualification, which admittedly he did not fulfil as on the date when earlier order dated 6.12.76 (Ex.2) was passed and as such, the same was rightly re- called, reviewed and rescinded by subsequent selection order dated 4.2.77 (Ex. 3), having been passed in supersession of the said order. I am fortified by the decisions in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, ( 1991(3) SCC 47 ) and of this Court in Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan, (1995(1) RLR 549) .13. In Shankarasan Das v. Union of India (supra), the Apex Court observed thus "Even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies." 14. It has also been observed by the Apex Court that it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner and the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons, and if the vancancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.15. In Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the learned Division Bench of this Court while upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge observed that it is not open to a particular candidate to claim estoppel against the Rules; and that even though they may have been confirmed in service and they may have served for some years, they are not entitled to any relief from this Court since otherwise, grant of relief to them would amount to perpetuation of the illegality. It was further observed that the petitioners were not entitled to continue in service merely on the strength of interim order passed by the Court particularly when they were not found eligible notwithstanding fact of their having qualified in Training course, and they did not possess requisite minimum qualifications16. Consequently, I am of the view that both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have not taken note of the above legal aspect of the matter and the concurrent findings of fact are liable to be set-aside in this second appeal as they are neither sustainable nor are having legal foundations and hence deserve to be quashed and set-aside.17. In the result, this second appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned judgments & decrees dated 26.8.94 of the first appellate Court and order dated 14.4.1981 of the Additional Munsiff No. 2, Jaipur City Jaipur are quashed and set-aside.Second Appeal Allowed-Decrees Of Both Courts Below Quashed and Set-Aside. *******