Honble MADAN, J.–This special appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 04/10/1999 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing SBCWP No.2001/98 filed by the appellant. (2). Admitted facts are that in pursuance of an advertisement (Ann.1) issued on 07/5/97 by the District Education Officer Dholpur (respondent No.3), inviting applications for eight posts of PTI Grade III for the year 1997-98, the interviews were held on 17/5/97 wherein Kumari Anita Dwivedi (appellant) was also interviewed on her application. As a result of interviews taken of respective candidates who had applied for aforesaid post, select list was prepared and appointments were given to the successful and meritorious candidates and the selection process pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement had already over, but the appellant has preferred aforesaid writ petition challenging the advertisement on the ground that despite there having been 20% reservation for women under Rule 7-B of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short the Rules), to which provision was inserted vide notification dt 22/1/1997, the respondent Department failed to make any reservation for women in the advertisement dt. 7/5/97 (Annex.1) for the posts of Physical Training Instructor. In the prayer clause, the appellant sought relief for directing the respondents to appoint her on the post of Physical Training Instructor in quota reserved for woman candidates as per her merit. (3). It was the case of the appellant that in combined merit list, her name was shown at S.No.110 whereas in separate merit list of woman candidates, her name appeared at S.No.l. In the counter the respondents though admitted by stating in reply to para 8 of writ petition that the petitioner stood at S.No.110 in the merit list, but in Para 9 of the reply categorically denied the contents of para 9 of the writ petition stating them as misleading, because according to them there was no separate list of woman candidates. (4). It was also the case of the appellant in para 6 of the writ petition that in writ petition Nos. 4986/96 and 4987/96 filed by Sunita Sharma & Tushti Sharma respectively, this Court had ordered to keep two posts reserved for woman candidates but those petitions had been dismissed ultimately on 18/11/97, thereby aforesaid two posts had fallen vacant, for which she is entitled to be appointed by virtue of her merit being topper in the womens list. 4986/96 and 4987/96 filed by Sunita Sharma & Tushti Sharma respectively, this Court had ordered to keep two posts reserved for woman candidates but those petitions had been dismissed ultimately on 18/11/97, thereby aforesaid two posts had fallen vacant, for which she is entitled to be appointed by virtue of her merit being topper in the womens list. Against this, the respondents in their counter in para 6 at page 4 specifically pleaded that consequent upon dismissal of aforesaid two writ petitions, though two posts had fallen vacant but out of which one was filled up in compliance of the decision of this Court rendered in writ petition No.3116/97 and thereby as per merit list of the year 1996-97, the appointment was given to one Rakesh Kumari, inasmuch as another one post stood vacant was kept for being filled up by advertisement under the order of this Court as against session of the year 1998-99. It was also pleaded in the counter that since name of the appellant was not in the merit of 1996-97, she could not have been given appointment as against other post kept vacant for 1996-97, inasmuch as since there was no post reserved for woman candidates and further she was not in the merit list prepared for general category for the year 1997-98, she could not be given appointment to the post in question, as has been communicated to her by letter dt. 04/04/98 (Ann.8), as per which she was conveyed that a training degree is recognised only when it is conferred by a University recognised by UGC or approved by National Council for Teacher Education (for short NCTE) and that since the Agra University had not applied to NCTE for recognition, therefore, B.P.Ed. degree of the Agra University in favour of the appellant could not be considered. In counter the respondents in para 13 had pleaded that since the B.P.Ed. degree of Agra University is not recognised by the NCTE as is evident from its letter dt. 30/3/98 which was issued by the NCTE upon the NCTE Act, 1993 having come into force from 1.07.1995, the appellant cannot be given consideration as she was having no recognised degree of qualification prescribed for the post in question. (5). degree of Agra University is not recognised by the NCTE as is evident from its letter dt. 30/3/98 which was issued by the NCTE upon the NCTE Act, 1993 having come into force from 1.07.1995, the appellant cannot be given consideration as she was having no recognised degree of qualification prescribed for the post in question. (5). Be that as it may the learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition of the appellant holding that since the whole process of selection stood over, the appellant not having challenged the advertisement dt. 7/5/97 in time and further the selection process having already started for the next session 1998-99 for the post in question in which there has already been reservation made for women, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. Hence this special appeal. (6). Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, we find that there is no dispute that Rule 7B was added vide Notification dt. 22/1/97 to the Rules which reads as under: ``7B. Reservation of vacancies for Woman candidates — Reservation of vacancies for woman candidates shall be 20%, categorywise. in direct recruitment. In the event of non-availability of the eligible and suitable woman candidates in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and such vacancies shall not be carried forward to the subsequent year and the reservation shall be treated as horizontal reservation i.e. the reservation of woman candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective category to which the woman candidates belong. (7). Once the notification has been issued and by which Rule 7B was admittedly added to the service Rules, it was incumbent upon the State Government and its department to comply with requirements made under the provisions of the service rules before issuing notification inviting applications for vacant. posts by making reservation of woman candidates. By virtue of provisions made under Rule 7B of the Rules, 20% reservation has been woman candidates in direct recruitment. (8). Now the question arises as to whether these provisions made for reservation under Rule 7B have been complied with by the department (respondents) in issuing the advertisement dated 07/05/97 for eight advertised posts of PTI for the year 1997-98. A careful perusal of the impugned -advertisement dt. (8). Now the question arises as to whether these provisions made for reservation under Rule 7B have been complied with by the department (respondents) in issuing the advertisement dated 07/05/97 for eight advertised posts of PTI for the year 1997-98. A careful perusal of the impugned -advertisement dt. 07/05/97 makes it clear that out of advertised eight posts, four posts were meant for General Category whereas rest of posts ware reserved for SC/ST candidates. However, no reservation was made for woman candidates whereas two posts viz. 20%. of advertised eight posts ought to have been reserved for woman candidates as is provided under Rule 7B of the Rules and thereby failure on the part of the respondents (State & department) in not having reserved 20% of advertised posts for woman candidates has resulted in violating statutory provision of Rule 7B of the Rules. (9). This leads us to the question as to whether the impugned advertisement dated 07/05/97 having been issued in violation of Rule 7B of the Rules and without making 20% reservation for woman candidates can be set aside especially when the selection process pursuant to the impugned advertisement was already over before approaching the court in writ petition filed on 10/4/98. In our considered opinion admittedly it was well within the knowledge of the appellant when she had appeared for interview for the posts advertised that the impugned advertisement has violated the statutory provisions of Rule 7B of the Rules as it had not made 20% reservation for woman candidates. But curiously enough she challenged the entire advertisement when she failed to get appointment after the entire selection process pursuant to the impugned advertisement had been over as soon as selected candidates were given appointments for the advertised posts. (10). In this regard Shri Katta contended that duration of selection (which was to end on 31/3/1998 as per impugned advertisement) had been extended upto 31/5/98 vide State Govt.s order dated 24/2/98 and in this view of the matter, the selections were over on 31/5/98 after he approached this Court on 10/4/98. (10). In this regard Shri Katta contended that duration of selection (which was to end on 31/3/1998 as per impugned advertisement) had been extended upto 31/5/98 vide State Govt.s order dated 24/2/98 and in this view of the matter, the selections were over on 31/5/98 after he approached this Court on 10/4/98. Shri Katta contended that since the impugned advertisement was issued after general order of reservation dated 22/1/97 adding Rule 7B in the Rules itself, it ought to have reserved the posts bearing the statutory provisions of 20% reservation for woman candidates but having failed to do so, such advertisement without bearing statutory provision of 20% reservation must be declared unconstitutional as has been done by this Court in Pragya Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan (1), wherein even the advertisement had been issued prior to amendment by insertion of Rule 7B for 20% reservation of woman candidates and selections could not have been made then the benefit of reservation was held to be granted to woman candidates. Without disputing the dictum of law laid down in Pragya Saxenas case (supra), we are of the considered opinion that so far as the present case is concerned, entire impugned advertisement bearing no provisions of 20% reservation for woman candidates cannot be quashed and set aside obviously because in case it is set aside it would result in automatically conconstitutional affecting appointments of successful candidates selected pursuant to impugned or allegedly advertisement and since the appellant allegedly has not arrayed any of these successful candidates either in the writ petition or this special appeal (who were selected and appointed pursuant to the impugned advertisement) hence entire impugned advertisement, may be unconstitutional being violative of provisions of Rule 7B of the Rules, cannot be set aside by this Court inasmuch as no relief was sought for against the selected and appointed candidate, whereas her mere relief sought for in the writ petition was to direct the respondent department to appoint her on the post of PTI in quota reserved for woman candidates as per her merit. (11). In our considered view, the appellant cannot take somersault and cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. (11). In our considered view, the appellant cannot take somersault and cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. On the one hand, she contended that no reservation was made for woman in the impugned advertisement while on the other hand she claimed appointment on the post of PTI in quota reserved for woman candidates whereas admittedly the impugned advertisement did not contain any provision of 20% reservation for woman candidates in compliance of Notification dt. 22/1/97 as well as Rule 7B itself of the Rules. Be that as it may in the peculiar facts & circumstances (supra) the impugned advertisement so also selection process which ultimately culminated in giving appointments to the selected candidates, cannot be and is not interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction. (12). Let us advert to the second limb of argument to the question as to whether any post of PTI Grade III has been lying vacant. (13). Though two posts had fallen vacant consequent upon dismissal of two writ petition Nos.4986/96 & 4987/96 filed by Sunita Sharma & Tushti Sharma respectively wherein this Court had kept two posts reserved for woman candidates, but as per pleadings on record, admittedly out of aforesaid two posts, one was filled up in compliance of the decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No.3116/97 as per merit list of the year 1996-97, the appointment was given to one Rakesh Kumari, and similarly rest of one post was also kept for being filled up by advertisement under the judgment of this Court in another case as against the year 1998- 99. (14). However, Shri Katta vociferously contended that out of those two posts one post had been filled up in compliance of the order of this Court passed on 23/3/98 but another post has still been lying vacant as has been admitted by the respondent department in its letter dated 10/11/98 addressed to Smt. Seema Sharma declining to appoint her as that post stood kept vacant for the appellant in order to ensure compliance of interim order dated 21/4/98 by the learned Single Judge in appellants writ petition, inasmuch as by virtue of interim order dated 22/11/99 passed by this Court (DB) in this present special appeal, one post of PTI III has been lying vacant. (15). (15). Be that as it may, the impugned advertisement challenged in the appellants writ petition relates to the posts of the year 1997- 98 and that apart, position of one post having been lying vacant and kept as such reserved for woman candidates pursuant to the interim orders of this Court (SB & DB) either in this special appeal or in another writ petition stated in the counter and written argument, has neither been disputed nor challenged during the course of arguments but only argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent State was that even as per Rule 7B carry forward of posts reserved for woman candidates is not permissible. In our considered view such a contention is not tenable in the facts of the present case because carry forward of posts (reserved under Rule (7B) is impermissible only in case of non-availability of eligible and suitable woman candidates, whereas in the present case, as analysed above, no reservation for woman candidates was ever made under the advertised posts of PTI for the year 1997-98, for which the position emerges that out of two posts reserved for woman candidates under interim orders of this Court, one has still been lying vacant being kept reserved for woman candidates. Thus for the year 1997-98 Rule 7B had been got complied with consequent upon interim orders or final decision of this Court (supra) atleast for one post being reserved and having been filled up by appointing woman candidate through advertisement. And only one post out of two posts (20% reservation of eight advertised posts under the impugned advertisement) is lying vacant being reserved for woman candidate under Rule 7B for the year 1997-98. (16). As regards the decisions cited by Shri Gupta for the respondent department, let us have a brief resume of those cited decisions. In J. Ashok Kumar vs. State of A.P. (2), while observing that any candidate who appeared for the selection even for direct recruitment would be eligible to be considered for the weightage, provided to candidate having NCC qualification, the Apex Court held that since the selection has already been over and candidates were selected and appointed, no benefit could be given to the petitioner. (17). (17). In State of U.P. vs. Harish Chandra (3) the Apex Court held that in view of statutory Rules contained in Rule 26 of the U.P. Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules 1985, the High Court could not issue the direction to recruit the persons who were included in the select list prepared on 4/4/1987 which no longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons in the list, did not subsist. The Apex Court also held that even if on some occasions appointments have been made by the appointing authority than a select list even after the expiry of one year from the date of selection, such illegal action of the appointing authority does not confer a right on an applicant to be enforced by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was a case where under Rule 26 of the aforesaid Rules 1985, a select list prepared under Recruitment Rules has its life only for one year from the date of its preparation and it expires thereafter. (18). The ratio of decisions cited by Shri Gupta does not help in any manner to the respondent keeping in view the pleadings on record especially the controversy raised as to the non compliance of making 20% reservation for woman candidates as provided in Rule 7-B of the Rules, for the advertised posts of the year 1997-98. (19). However, as expounded by the Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Harish Chandra (supra), a writ of mandamus can be issued by the Court under the Constitution when the incumbent establishes his legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom mandamus is sought and further establishes that such right was ever subsisting on the date of the petition. It is trite law that the duty enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a statute or by Rules or orders having force of law. Similarly, no mandamus can be issued to direct the government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something contrary to law. (20). It is trite law that the duty enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a statute or by Rules or orders having force of law. Similarly, no mandamus can be issued to direct the government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something contrary to law. (20). Thus viewed, merely because of participation on the part of the appellant and the completion of selection process for the posts advertised in violation of Rule 7B of the Rules would not deprive of her legal right to challenge it in court of law nor would it make any difference since on the date of filing her writ petition, the appellant has a legal right subsisting to the performance of legal duty enjoined upon the State Govt. under Rule 7-B of the statutory Rules, 1971 to have complied with provision bearing on 20% reservation of posts for woman candidates. Hence, the learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that since whole process of selection is over, the appellant not having assailed the advertisement dt. 7.5.97 in time and further selection process having already started for next session, no interference is called for by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. (21). However, since the appellant claimed relief of appointing her against posts of PTI though advertised for the year 1997-98 but not reserved for woman candidates therefore, notwithstanding the posts lying vacant for earlier or subsequent to the year 1997-98, the appellant cannot claim any right of appointment against for vacant posts of the year other than 1997-98. As already held one post is since still lying vacant for the year 1997-98 as a result of interim orders of this Court (SB and/or DB) as is evident from pleadings stated above, in our view, that post (out of two posts reserved for woman candidates u/R. 7-B which could not be done by the impugned advertisement) is certainly reserved for woman candidate for the year 1997-98. (22). Now this leads us to the question as to whether for the above reserved post this Court can issue direction to appoint the appellant only as prayed for in the writ petition. (22). Now this leads us to the question as to whether for the above reserved post this Court can issue direction to appoint the appellant only as prayed for in the writ petition. In our considered view, even in Pragya Saxenas case (supra) cited by Shri Katta, this Court while allowing the writ petition did not issue direction to appoint the petitioner only and this Court directed to consider the case of the petitioner against the reservation meant for woman candidates as per notification dated 22/1/97, obviously because the Court cannot issue direction to either recruit or appoint the incumbent aggrieved by non compliance of statutory rules for reservation for woman candidates, who appeared in the selection process for interview and included in merit list prepared for the posts of general category under the impugned advertisement and further because it is totally within the competence and domain of the selecting authority to recruit for the vacancy by adopting the process of selection provided under the recruitment rules, as no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. Our view is fortified from the dictum of law laid down by the Apex court in State of U.P. vs. Harish Chandra (supra). (23). It is the case of the appellant right from the pleadings in writ petition, itself, that while issuing and advertising eight posts 20% reservation for woman candidates as provided under Rule 7B of the Rules was not made and admittedly some of candidates who appeared for interview and selected have already been appointed. Thus no process of selection under statutory recruitment rules has taken place for impugned post of PTI reserved for woman candidates and as concluded above, now only one post stands lying vacant for the year 1997-98 for being reserved for woman candidate U/r 7B of the Rules, which has not yet undergone the process of selection under recruitment rules under Part III and Part IV of the Rules, 1971. (24). The learned counsel for the respondent State not only in the counter to the writ petition but also during the course of argument contended that by virtue of letter dt. 30/03/98 of the NCTE, which came into force w.e.f. 1.7.1995, qualification acquired through B.P.Ed. (24). The learned counsel for the respondent State not only in the counter to the writ petition but also during the course of argument contended that by virtue of letter dt. 30/03/98 of the NCTE, which came into force w.e.f. 1.7.1995, qualification acquired through B.P.Ed. degree from Agra University is not recognised by the NCTE, therefore, the appellant who is holder of B.P.Ed. degree from Agra University not recognised by the NCTE, cannot be considered as eligible one for being appointed on the post of PTI, as intimated to her by letter dt. 4/4/98 (Ann.8). This contention is devoid of force as to the eligibility of the appellant who having such alleged de-recognised degree was undisputably called for interview for the posts of the year 1997-98 under the impugned advertisement and in the merit list prepared for that, her name appeared at S.No.110 in general category thus it cannot be said that she was not eligible for being considered to the posts of PTI in question and further letter of the NCTE de-recognising B.P.Ed.degree of Agra University was issued on March 30, 1998 after impugned advertisement dt. 07/05/97 for posts of the year 1997-98, so letter of de-recognition cannot be made applicable to the advertisement in question for the year 1997-98 for holding her as not eligible for being considered. Moreover, without entering into the controversy on merits as to the validity of the letter dated 30/3/98 of the NCTE de-recognising B.P.Ed degree of Agra University as it has not been challenged by the appellant in writ petition for quashing it, we will only say that in view of the Agra University being recognised and statutory automonous body, the degree obtained from such University cannot be considered as de-recognised degree in the facts and circumstances of the present case for the purposes of consideration of the appellant for the post of the year 1997-98. (25). We are also of the considered view that process of selection for recruitment against existing or anticipated vacancies does not create or confer any right to appointment. The recruitment for the advertised posts or any other posts mentioned in the Schedule to the recruitment Rules, 1971 is a condition precedent. (25). We are also of the considered view that process of selection for recruitment against existing or anticipated vacancies does not create or confer any right to appointment. The recruitment for the advertised posts or any other posts mentioned in the Schedule to the recruitment Rules, 1971 is a condition precedent. The courts should not arrogate itself to the power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and consider the suitability for appointment because that was the function of the selection committee under the recruitment rules. It is settled law that the appropriate relief to be granted is not a direction to appoint the petitioner but a direction to consider the case for appointment. Hence we decline to issue direction for giving appointment to the appellant only for the post of PTI which was not reserved for woman candidate under the impugned advertisement. However, since the impugned advertisement was issued in violation of Rule 7B of the Rules without making reservation for woman candidates and the selection process had already over and only one post stands lying vacant for the year 1997-98 for which admittedly no separate merit list was ever prepared for woman candidates during selection process, an appropriate relief to be granted is to consider not only the appellant but also other eligible candidates for reserved post of woman candidate for the year 1997-98 on the same condition of eligibility and qualification stated in the impugned advertisement dated 07/05/97 by inviting requisite applications for recruitment under the Rules, 1971 afresh. (26). As a result of the above discussion, this special appeal so also the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04/10/1999 is quashed & set aside in the light of above observations. However, the respondents are directed to consider the appellant as well as other eligible candidates for aforesaid one post of PTI reserved for woman candidates only for the year 1997-98 by issuing fresh advertisement inviting applications and then adopting recourse as provided for direct recruitment under the recruitment Rules of 1971 but with the same conditions and qualification as stated in the impugned advertisement as if it were issued on 07/05/1997. However it is made clear that woman candidates who had already applied for but not selected & appointed after having faced interview under the impugned advertisement dated 07/05/1997 for the year 1997-98, including the appellant need not to apply afresh but shall be called for interview in accordance with rules. Two months time from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment is granted to implement the directions given above. No order as to costs.