JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have approached this court with a prayer that respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioners as Teacher Grade III on the basis of select list prepared in pursuance to the advertisement No.1/93 from the date similarly situated persons are appointed. 2. The contextual facts depict that name of the petitioners find place in the merit list prepared by the respondents on November 25, 1995 in pursuance to the advertisement No. 1/93 issued by Zila Parishad Dholpur for the post of Teacher Grade III. The respondents did not effectuate the selection made as aforesaid and in the garb of verification of educational certificates the petitioners have been denied appointment to the post of Teacher Grade Ill for no fault on their part. The candidates who were lower in merit but whose certificates were verified in time have been given appointment. Writ petitions of similarly situated candidates who were selected along with the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance to advertisement No.1/93, were allowed by this court vide order dated November 20, 1997 whereby the respondent were directed to give appointment to the petitioners of the writ petitions. 3. Mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not choose to file reply and argued the matter finally. Placing reliance on (1) State of Bihar v. Md. Kalimuddin ( 1996 (2) SCC 7 ) and (2) State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) (9) SCC 309) , it was canvassed that since life of select list expired no mandamus can be issued by this court. In respect of order dated November 20, 1997 of this Court it was argued that correct statement of facts could not be placed before this court by the department and the Special Appeal against the said order is now pending. 4. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record as well as case law cited before me. 5. The fact that empanelment was done in pursuance to the advertisement issued and selection was made, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that verification of certificates got delayed for no fault of the petitioners and candidates lower in merit were given appointment. Admittedly the petitioners have been denied appointment on account of negligence and inaction on the part of the department and the Universities concerned. It is also not in dispute that verification of certificates got delayed for no fault of the petitioners and candidates lower in merit were given appointment. Admittedly the petitioners have been denied appointment on account of negligence and inaction on the part of the department and the Universities concerned. The respondents, it appears have given appointment to less meritorious candidates from the select list and denied the appointment to the petitioners who were placed high in merit, in the garb of verification of their certificates. When the respondents had taken the responsibility of verification of certificates, they were duty bound to get the verification done before the expiry of the panel or they could appoint the petitioners provisionally subject to verification of their certificates. The act of respondents in discriminating the petitioners with that of the other candidates of select list appears to be malafide. 6. In State of Bihar v. Md. Kalimuddin (supra) and State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (supra) none from the select list was given appointment. Ratio of the aforesaid cases is that successful candidates do not acquire an independent right to be appointed but in Md. Kalimuddin case it was further observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 8 "It is indeed expected of the State to act bonafide and for valid reasons in refusing to make the appointments after the selection process has been gone through."It was further held that- "The ultimate outcome of that exercise is not fully brought on record but it is obvious that the State Government was not acting malafide and merely with a view to denying appointment to the respondents herein. Merely because notwithstanding the availability of trained personnel the State Government was inclined to change the rules in that behalf does not appear to be a valid ground for contending that the Government had acted malafide." 7. In the instant case, as already stated, the respondents have acted malafidely and merely with a view to denying appointment to the petitioners in the garb of verification of their certificates. Thus, the act of the respondents is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the above, I do not think it necessary to discuss Rules 15, 16 and 18 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila parishad Rules 1959 and the case law cited by Mr. Thus, the act of the respondents is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the above, I do not think it necessary to discuss Rules 15, 16 and 18 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila parishad Rules 1959 and the case law cited by Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 9. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade III according to their merit from the date the persons lower in merit were given appointment with all consequential benefits within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Costs easy.Petition allowed. *******