JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants, State of Rajasthan and its officers, have come in appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge [reported in 1999(2) RLR 49 ] allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent, who has been directed by the learned Single Judge to be appointed in the post for which she was selected but appointment was not being given to her on the ground of pendency of certain cases relating to her marriage with a person who was alleged to have a subsisting earlier marriage. 2. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court complaining that though she was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer (Collegiate Branch) on 5.4.96 and was placed in the merit list at S1.No. 7, she was not given appointment on the ground that one Ms. Meenakshi Bharti had complained that the respondent had married one Sankalp Shabbir Hasan Quazi, who was husband of the said Ms. Meenakshi Bharti and they had two children from the marriage. Ms. Meenakshi Bharti had also alleged that she had filed a criminal case against the said Sankalp @ Shabbir Hasan Quazi and the respondent Dr. (Mrs.) Nikhat Tasneem for having contracted the marriage during the subsistence of earlier marriage of Sankalp Shabbir Hasan Quazi with her. According to the respondent, she had married in accordance with the Muslim law, with Sankalp @ Shabbir Hasan Quazi who was a Muslim, after duly verifying the dissolution of his earlier marriage by 'Talak' given by him to Ms. Meenakshi Bharti. It was also averred by the respondent in the writ petition that there was no criminal case pending against her and therefore, action of the Government in depriving her of the job for which she was selected, was illegal. 3. The State of Rajasthan took the stand that it was well within their right not to appoint a person who has married a person who has a marriage subsisting as it was against the public policy adopted by the State not to employ any person who is party to a plural marriage. 4. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge took the view that since no criminal case was pending against the respondent Dr. 4. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge took the view that since no criminal case was pending against the respondent Dr. (Mrs.) Nikhat Tasneem herself and since she was not already in the employment of the State Government, the Service Rules did not apply to her and therefore, her appointment could not have been withheld by the State Government on the ground that a criminal case was pending against her husband and that she was party to a plural marriage. 5. The law on the point that selection to a post only does not confer any vested right on the successful candidate is well settled. In (1) Shankarsan Das V. Union of India 1991(3) SCC 47 : 1991(2) SLR 779 (SC) , it was held that 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 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. However, it does not mean that the State has a licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons and if the vacancies 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. The view has been reiterated in (2) U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam V. Shiv Narain Gupta (1994 (4) SLR 461) . 6. Examining the case in the light of the above case law, we have to find out whether the respondent was arbitrarily deprived of her right to appointment and whether there was no rational basis for the decision of the Government not to appoint the respondent despite her selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. 6. Examining the case in the light of the above case law, we have to find out whether the respondent was arbitrarily deprived of her right to appointment and whether there was no rational basis for the decision of the Government not to appoint the respondent despite her selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The contentions of the respondent, which found favour with the learned Single judge, were (i) that there was no criminal case pending against the respondent herself and therefore, she could not have been deprived of appointment on that count and (ii) the respondent herself was not bound by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 (in short' the Rules), especially rule 25(2) which prohibits marriage of a female Government employee with a person already having a subsisting marriage and therefore, she could not have been deprived of appointment on that ground. 7. So far as the first point is concerned, it is not correct to say that the appointment has been withheld only on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against the respondent. A reading of complaint dated 4.5.96 lodged by Ms. Meenakshi Bharti with the Director of College Education, Jaipur, annexed to the return of the State Government as Annexure R-1, shows that her main grievance was that the respondent Dr. (Mrs.) Nikhat Tasneem had entered into a marriage with Sankalp @ Shabbir Hasan Quazi knowing fully well that he was already married to Ms. Meenakshi Bharti and they had two issues from the marriage. It was also alleged in the complaint that the marriage of Sankalp Shabbir Hasan Quazi with Ms. Meenakshi Bharti had taken place according to the Hindu rites. She had also alleged in the complaint that the respondent Dr. (Mrs.) Nikhat Tesneem was already in Government service and she had violated rule 25(2) of the Rules. She had referred to the criminal complaint filed by her in a court of law, only by way of fortifying her allegations by giving information to the authorities and that was not the main plank of the complaint. The officers conducting the character verification had of course pointed out the pendeny of the complaint and did not find anything else against the character of the respondent. The officers conducting the character verification had of course pointed out the pendeny of the complaint and did not find anything else against the character of the respondent. On this material, the Deputy Secretary to the Government wrote to the Director, College Education on 1.7.97 vide Annexure R-4 to the return filed by the State, that since the matter of the respondent was pending in court, it was not possible to consider giving of appointment to her till the matter is decided by the court. This was not a communication addressed to the respondent and was a part of the internal correspondence of the Government offices. Actually, the State Government has not informed the respondent officially as to why they have not given her appointment. In the return filed by the State Government also, the State Government has taken the stand that during the pendency of criminal case, the respondent could not have been given appointment to the post of Lecturer. It was contended that the matter as to whether the marriage of the respondent with Sankalp @ Shabbir Hasan Quazi was during the subsistence of his earlier marriage or not, was pending before the criminal court and till the decision of that case, it was not possible to give appointment to the respondent. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances and on the basis of the material before this Court, it has to be decided whether the Government action in depriving the respondent of employment is so arbitrary and capricious that this Court should have interfered and issued a mandamus for giving appointment to the respondent. It is dear from the petition itself that Sankalp. Shabbir Hasan Quazi had converted to Hinduism and performed marriage with Ms. Meenakshi Bharti according to Hindu rites on 6.8.78. The respondent herself in para 13 of her writ petition had averred as follows:, "That husband of the petitioner, Shri S.H. Quaji married one Ms. Minakshi Bharti as per Arya Samaj Rituals on 6.8.78 at Arya Samaj, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. Later on, Ms. Minakshi Bharti converted to Islam and changed her name to Mst. Mehjabeen and Nikah was solemnised on 15.4.79 between them as per Muslim Rites and Ceremonies." 9. In Annexure-8 to the writ petition, the alleged Talaknama in the shape of a notice by the lawyer of Sankalp @Shabbir Hasan Quazi addressed to Ms. Meenakshi Bharti it was stated on behalf of Sankalp . Mehjabeen and Nikah was solemnised on 15.4.79 between them as per Muslim Rites and Ceremonies." 9. In Annexure-8 to the writ petition, the alleged Talaknama in the shape of a notice by the lawyer of Sankalp @Shabbir Hasan Quazi addressed to Ms. Meenakshi Bharti it was stated on behalf of Sankalp . Shabbir Hasan Quazi that on 6.8.78 Sankalp @ Shabbir Hasan Quazi had married Ms. Meenakshi Bharti in Arya Samaj. It is, therefore, an admitted position that the first marriage of Sankalp @ Shabbir Hasan Quazi with Ms. Meenakshi Bharti was solemnized in Arya Samaj on 6.8.78 and Sankalp @ Shabbir Hasan Quazi had converted to Hinduism and this appears to be true because a marriage in Arya Samaj could have taken place between two Hindus only. If this is true, the Hindu marriage performed between the parties could not have been taken as automatically dissolved by conversion of one or both the parties, to Islam and the husband giving Talaq to her thereafter. Obviously, religion cannot be allowed to be changed as a matter of convenience to facilitate one of the parties to have plural marriage or to get out of a legally valid Hindu marriage. If that is so, it is clear that marriage of Sankalp @ Shabbir Hasan Quazi with the respondent would be a marriage in subsistence of earlier valid marriage. There is a prima facie case, therefore, to proceed against him and he is being proceeded against in a court of law. 10. There is no doubt that Sankalp @ Shabbir Hasan Quazi, could have been proceeded against for a misconduct under the Service Rules being a Government servant also but the question is whether because a criminal case is pending against Sankalp @ Shabbir Hasan Quazi, the respondent could have been deprived of her appointment. Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the 'Rules') relates to bigamous marriages. It reads as under: "25. Bigamous marriages. - (1) No Government servant who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. (2) No female Government servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government." 11. (2) No female Government servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government." 11. It is submitted that the respondent could not have been held guilty of misconduct under Rule 25(2) of the Rules even assuming that the earlier marriage of Sankalp @ Shabbir Hasan Quazi was surviving because she is not in Government service at present. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, Rule 25(2) of the Rules would come into operation only against the existing Government servant and not prospective Government servant. The argument is attractive at its face but does not stand closer scrutiny. The question to be considered in this case is as to whether the decision of the Government not to offer appointment to the respondent was so unreasonable, arbitrary or unjust that it would offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Examined from this angle, we have to find out whether the decision of the State Government not to offer appointment to the respondent because her appointment ultimately would violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Rule 25 of the Rules, can be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The answer has to be in the negative. What would not be permissible for the respondent after coming into service can always be a good reason for depriving her of the service itself. It would be quite anomalous and absurd if the conduct, which is a misconduct for a Government servant, is to be treated as good conduct or at least un - objectionable conduct for a prospective Government servant. If from the material, which is brought to the notice of the State Government, it is obvious that there are serious doubts about the bigamous nature of the marriage entered into by the respondent, the State Government would be within its right to deny appointment to the respondent as a selected candidate does not get a vested right of appointment. It is always open to the State Government, as an employer, to defer or deny appointment to a selected candidate for good and valid reasons. 12. It was also contended that there was no criminal case pending against the respondent and therefore, her appointment could not have been taken away on the ground of pendency of criminal case against her husband. 12. It was also contended that there was no criminal case pending against the respondent and therefore, her appointment could not have been taken away on the ground of pendency of criminal case against her husband. Again, the question is not whether a criminal case is pending against the respondent herself or not, but the question is whether her own marriage could be held to be bigamous marriage as a result of the pending case or not. There is no case pending against the respondent obviously because a female could not have been proceeded against for an offence of bigamy. That does not mean that she gets a clean chit though she is a party to the bigamous marriage. The crux of the matter is whether the respondent's marriage is under a cloud or not and whether she can be said to be a party to the bigamous marriage or not. If there is material to show that prima facie the marriage of the respondent is bigamous, the State Government would be within its right to withhold her appointment and such a decision cannot be said to be arbitrary, unjust or unreasonable and for that reason,, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. We are therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 10.5.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There shall be no order as to costs.Spl. Appeal Allowed. *******