JUDGMENT - GOKHALE H.L., J.:---This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is concerning the appointment to the posts of Gram Sevaks under Zilla Parishads in the State of Maharashtra, which were to be made under the Government Resolution dated 6th June, 2001 on contract basis. The petitioners herein are Graduates in Agriculture (B.Sc.) Agri.) and their principal grievance in this petition is that although the graduates are also eligible for being considered to the post of Gram Sevak under this Resolution, their names were not called from the Employment Exchange, nor was an appropriate advertisement inviting applications issued in the newspapers. Although the petition seeks to challenge the Government Resolution dated 6th June, 2001, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments in Court, has confined his submissions principally to the above contentions and sought appropriate reliefs. 2.In the petition, as it was filed the State of Maharashtra through Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department was joined as respondent No. 1 and four Zilla Parishads of Ahmednagar, Satara, Parbhani and Aurangabad were joined as respondents No. 2 to 5. This petition came up for consideration before another Division Bench on 6th September, 2001 when leave was sought to add all Zilla Parishads in the State as party respondents and the same was granted. The Court issued notice before admission and passed an interim order as under: "Respondent No. 1 and all Zilla Parishadas in the State are directed not to give appointments on contract basis on the posts of Gram Sevaks to the candidates, who might have been selected in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 6th June, 2001 till further orders." The Court directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to communicate the said order to the concerned Department and also to all the Zilla Parishads in the State. The petition was subsequently admitted on 1st February, 2002 and the interim relief granted was continued. Thereafter, all the respondents, except Sangli Zilla Parishad, have been served. As far as Zilla Parishad, Sangli is concerned, an affidavit has been affirmed by the petitioner that the office of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, had assured for effecting service on the said Zilla Parishad although acknowledgement is not received as yet. It is, however, necessary to note that all Zilla Parishads, including this Sangli Zilla Parishad, were served with notice before admission. 3.Mr. It is, however, necessary to note that all Zilla Parishads, including this Sangli Zilla Parishad, were served with notice before admission. 3.Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh, learned Counsel, has appeared for the petitioners. Mr. E.P. Sawant, learned Government Pleader and Mr. Phatake, learned Assistant Government Pleader, have appeared for respondent No. 1. From amongst various Zilla Parishads, Mr. D.R. Irale Patil, learned Counsel, has appeared for Aurangabad and Yavatmal Zilla Parishads. Mr. V.S. Panpatte, learned Counsel, has appeared for Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Mr. R.B. Raghuwanshi, learned Counsel, has appeared for Dhule Zilla Parishad, Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned Counsel, has appeared for Ahmednagar Zilla Parishad and Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, learned Counsel, has appeared for Osmanabad Zilla Parishad. 4.Before we deal with the averments in the petition it is material to note that, as far as the appointments to the posts of Gram Sevaks in the Zilla Parishads are concerned, they are governed under the recruitment rules framed by the State Government under section 248 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. The Rules which are governing this field as of now are known as "the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967". It is material to note at this stage that, the appointments with respect to which this petition is filed, are not appointments under these Rules. These appointments are under the Government Resolution of 6th June, 2001 on a contractual basis for a period of 11 months to begin with on a consolidated pay of Rs. 2500/- per month. Clause (iii) of Rule 2 of these Rules makes it clear that these Rules shall not apply to the posts to which appointments are made on contract. 5.Now, the controversy which is raised in this petition and as agitated in this Court is concerning the manner in which the Zilla Parishads have proceeded to fill these pots of Gram Sevaks under the Government Resolution dated 6th June, 2001. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions of this Government Resolution and its Annexure "A". This resolution, in its preamble, states that the State Government has taken a decision on 31st May, 2000 to fill some 1545 posts existing in all Zilla Parishads in the State on contract basis. It is further stated that the appointees are to be given a consolidated pay of Rs. 2500/- per month. This resolution, in its preamble, states that the State Government has taken a decision on 31st May, 2000 to fill some 1545 posts existing in all Zilla Parishads in the State on contract basis. It is further stated that the appointees are to be given a consolidated pay of Rs. 2500/- per month. Thereafter it is stated that the aforestated 1545 posts are other than those for which already requisitions have been sent by the Zilla Parishads to the earlier existing Selections Boards. Clause 2 of the Annexure "A" to this resolution gives the educational qualifications. This Clause 2 reads as follows: "Educational qualification for Gram Sevaks: Qualifications as prescribed in the existing Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1967. (a) Qualifications as per the existing recruitment rules. (1)(i) Unless already in the service of the Zilla Parishad, not more than 30 years of age; and (ii) possess Secondary School Certificate or an equivalent qualification and diploma in Agriculture (two years course), preference being given to candidates who possess degree in Agriculture or higher qualification." Clause 6 of this Annexure states that the appointments are to be made for a period of 11 months and thereafter the tenure will stand terminated. In the event, the performance of a candidate is found satisfactory he may be appointed on contract basis again for a period of 11 months. The clause further states that as far as the candidates whose services are not found satisfactory, their services will be terminated without any prior notice. In Clause 7 it is stated that the minimum age will be 18 years and the upper age limit will be of 30 years. In case of the backward class candidates it will be relaxable upto 35 years. Clause 8 provides for evaluation of the work of the Gram Sevak. Clause 9 provides for his reappointment. Clause 10 provides for his absorption in regular service after completion of 5 years of service i.e. the candidate will be considered for absorption in the regular pay scale. While considering these 5 years the appointments on five occasions for the period of 11 months at a time will be considered as completion of 5 years. Thereafter, the procedure for selection and absorption at that stage is provided for. While considering these 5 years the appointments on five occasions for the period of 11 months at a time will be considered as completion of 5 years. Thereafter, the procedure for selection and absorption at that stage is provided for. In Clause 11 the Selection Committee for the selection on contract basis is provided and in Clause 12 the selection procedure has been laid down. This Clause 12 has in all seven and then 7-A as it sub-clauses. Sub-clause (1) provides for deciding the exact number of the posts to be filled in. Sub-clause (2) lays down that the Member Secretary of the Committee has to call for the names from the District Employment Exchange, the Commissioner of Tribal Development, District Social Welfare Department, and the Project Officer (Integrated Tribal Development Project). The number of candidates will be five times the vacancies and then the following sentence appears: "Along with this list the marks memos of S.S.C. and H.S.C. examinations and Diploma in Agriculture be asked to be forwarded. If the marks memos from those offices are not available, attested copies of the marks memos be called for from the candidates in the list." Sub-clause (3) appearing thereafter reads as follows: "After receipt of the lists from the concerned offices along with marks memos of the candidates concerning their examinations of Diploma in Agriculture, H.S.C. (12th) and S.C.C. (10th) a select list be prepared after considering the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination of the 2 years Diploma Examination of the Agriculture University." Sub-clause (4) provides that in the event marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination of the Diploma examination are same then the marks in the H.S.C. Examination be considered for preparing the standing in the select list and in the event the marks in the H.S.C. Examination are similar then the ranking be given on the basis of the marks in the 10th standard examination. Clause 13 of the Annexure "A" provides for reservations for the various categories. Clauses 14 to 19 lay down various other provisions to be fulfilled including the guarantee to be given by the candidate, his training etc. 6.Mr. Clause 13 of the Annexure "A" provides for reservations for the various categories. Clauses 14 to 19 lay down various other provisions to be fulfilled including the guarantee to be given by the candidate, his training etc. 6.Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that when we read these qualifications as laid down in this Government Resolution, in Clause 2 thereof it is clearly laid down that although the candidates who have passed S.S.C. or equivalent examination and Diploma in Agriculture (2 years course), are certainly eligible to apply for these posts, the clause, in terms, provides that preference has to be given to the candidates who possess degree in Agriculture or higher qualification. However, when it comes to the procedure for preparing the select list in Clause 12 of this Annexure the office of the Employment Exchange and other offices are asked to forward the lists of candidates who have passed only S.S.C., H.S.C. and Diploma in Agriculture. Clause 12 nowhere maintains that the certificates or marks memos of the graduates are also to be forwarded. He submits that if preference is to be given to the Graduates as per Clause 2 of the Annexure, it is certainly implied that they are undoubtedly eligible for being considered and if they are so eligible, the Government must seek particulars with respect to them also from the offices of the Employment Exchange and other authorities. Clause 12 is in that sense deficient in this respect. 7.The State Government has, however, issued a corrigendum, subsequently on 12th June, 2001, which is a letter addressed by the Deputy Secretary of the Government to the Chief Executive Officers of all the Zilla Parishads. In para 2 of this letter the Zilla Parishads are asked to publish in regional newspapers the relevant advertisements concerning the proposed recruitment to the posts of Gram Sevaks. This para 2, however, states that it should be stated in the advertisement that the selection of the candidates will depend on the marks obtained by them in the diploma in Agriculture examination. Para 3 of this letter, however further adds as follows: "As stated in Clause 2 of Annexure "A" of the terms and conditions of the contract system, preference will be given to the candidates who possesses degree in Agriculture or higher qualifications." After referring to this Corrigendum of 12th June, 2001, Mr. Para 3 of this letter, however further adds as follows: "As stated in Clause 2 of Annexure "A" of the terms and conditions of the contract system, preference will be given to the candidates who possesses degree in Agriculture or higher qualifications." After referring to this Corrigendum of 12th June, 2001, Mr. Deshmukh submits that although this letter does make it clear that preference will be given to the candidates who are Graduates in Agriculture or hold higher qualifications, again this letter is also to some extent deficient in the sense it states in the para 2 that the selection will depend upon the marks obtained in the Diploma in Agriculture. In any case this letter also does not specifically state that the names of the graduate candidates be also called from the offices of the Employment Exchanges or other offices or that they may as well apply. Mr. Deshmukh, therefore, submits that if as per Clause 2 of the Annexure to this Government Resolution of 6th June, 2001 the graduates are to be given preference, it certainly implies that they are eligible for being considered and if that is so, the least that is expected is that their names ought to be called from the Employment Exchanges and they should have adequate knowledge and information that they are also to be considered. This can only be achieved by appropriate advertisement and even the corrigendum of 12th June, 2001 does not specifically call upon the Zilla Parishads to state in the advertisements that the graduates are also eligible and that they can apply. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that if certain category of the candidates are otherwise eligible under the rules, their names have to be called from the Employment Exchange or whichever are the authorities wherein such candidates are supposed to register themselves and there also an advertisement ought to be issued so that the candidates who have not registered themselves with any agency come to know that they are also eligible and can apply. 8.It is material to note that in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the petition there is specific averment with respect to past practice. It is stated that on 26th August, 1990, a notification was issued by the State Government, whereby it was laid down that the graduates will be given preference in the appointment of Gram Sevaks. 8.It is material to note that in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the petition there is specific averment with respect to past practice. It is stated that on 26th August, 1990, a notification was issued by the State Government, whereby it was laid down that the graduates will be given preference in the appointment of Gram Sevaks. In para 14 it is stated that with effect from 26th August, 1990 till 6 June 2001, candidates who have passed Bachelors degree in Agriculture Science i.e. B.Sc. (Agri.) were appointed to these posts. It is further stated that in some cases those who have passed M.Sc. examination also were working in the post of Gram Sevak. At page 52 of the petition is an advertisement which was issued on 8th January, 1997 by the Regional Subordinate Services Selection Board and with respect to the post of Gram Sevaks which is appearing at serial No. 8 thereof, it is specifically mentioned that the candidate must possess Secondary School Certificate or an equivalent qualification and diploma in agriculture (two years course) but those with degree in Agriculture and higher qualifications or having experience of social service or rural services will have preference. These averments in the petition are not denied in the reply filed by the State or by any of the Zilla Parishads. It is submitted by the petitioners that all throughout the graduates were selected and appointed on these posts and now when it comes to this contract system of appointment although they are eligible and are in fact given preference in appointment, their names are neither called from the Employment Exchange nor any advertisement is given informing them that they are eligible and that they can apply. 9.Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners drew our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Union of India v. N. Hargopal)1, reported in 1987(3) S.C.C. 308 , wherein the Apex Court has observed that when it comes to employment by a public employer there will be an element of arbitrariness if the employer chooses to make appointment as he likes. The Court held in that matter that the Government instructions enjoining the employee to fill up notified vacancies by candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges were mandatory for Government departments and directory for bodies created by statute. The Court held in that matter that the Government instructions enjoining the employee to fill up notified vacancies by candidates sponsored by Employment Exchanges were mandatory for Government departments and directory for bodies created by statute. It is true that in the judgment, the Apex Court has observed that calling the names from the Employment Exchange is sufficient, though necessary wherever the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 apply. But in a subsequent judgment in the case of (Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao)2, reported in 1996(6) S.C.C. 216 , a Bench of three Judges has gone further ahead and has observed that restricting the selection only to the candidates sponsored by employment exchange was not proper. In para 6 of the judgment of Apex Court has observed as follows: "Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the Employment Exchange, and Employment Exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates." 10.As against this submission of the petitioners, as far as the State Government is concerned, it initially filed a reply affirmed on 1st February, 2002, wherein at the end of para 2, it was submitted that the decision is neither contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 nor the same are offending to say of the provision under the Rule, 1967, as well as the scheme under the Act. Thereafter, one additional affidavit in reply was affirmed on 10th December, 2002 and to that various charts were enclosed. These charts indicate that prior to the interim order granted by this Court, Sangli and Gondia Zilla Parishads had completed the procedure of selection and published the select lists and though select lists were published, the candidates were not issued appointment orders. These charts indicate that prior to the interim order granted by this Court, Sangli and Gondia Zilla Parishads had completed the procedure of selection and published the select lists and though select lists were published, the candidates were not issued appointment orders. After affirming that affidavit, information was received that the Zilla Parishads of Sindhudurg, Nagpur and Bhandara have completed the selection process but the actual appointment orders were not issued. The learned Government Pleader was therefore asked to find out as to whether in these five Zilla Parishads while calling the names from the Employment Exchanges, the names of graduates in Agriculture were also called and as to whether advertisements were given by those Zilla Parishads informing such candidates that they are also eligible. A further affidavit in reply was affirmed on behalf of the Government on 16th of December, 2002 to which the requisitions sent by these Zilla Parishads to the offices of the Employment Exchanges were enclosed as also the press cuttings from some of the news papers circulated in those districts. From these exhibits, it is clear that all those requisitions to the Employment Exchanges or other authorities referred to the Government Resolution of 6th June, 2001 and called for the names in accordance thereto. There is no reference to the subsequent corrigendum dated 12th June, 2001, which at least, state in para 3 to clarify that the graduates were entitled to a preference. It is an admitted position that none of the Zilla Parishads have issued any advertisement of their own informing the candidates and particularly the graduates as well, that they are also eligible and they may get preference if they apply. Two affidavits in reply have also been filed on behalf of Pune Zilla Parishad and Aurangabad Zilla Parishad. 11.Some of the candidates who were so selected in some of the Zilla Parishads, applied for intervention and they were added as respondents No. 35 to 42 in pursuance to the other passed by the earlier Division Bench on 11th July, 2002. They are Diploma Holders and are opposing this petition. Respondent No. 37 from amongst them i.e. Mukesh Rajaram Kangar appeared in-person and opposed the submissions being canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. It was submitted on behalf of these Diploma Holders that the Clause 2 of the annexure provides for preference being given to the graduates. They are Diploma Holders and are opposing this petition. Respondent No. 37 from amongst them i.e. Mukesh Rajaram Kangar appeared in-person and opposed the submissions being canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. It was submitted on behalf of these Diploma Holders that the Clause 2 of the annexure provides for preference being given to the graduates. It was, therefore, submitted that it is implied that the graduate concerned must be at least a Diploma Holder to begin with and then if he is a graduate he can claim a preference. It was further submitted that the post of Gram Sevak is a quite low post and the salary if appointed on contract basis is of Rs. 2500 per month without any security of employment. This kind of job was better suited for the Diploma holders. As such there is large scale unemployment and the intention of the Government under the particular Government Resolution is almost to reserve this area for the Diploma holders. This intention ought to be kept in mind while interpreting the Government Resolution. Emphasis was laid on behalf of the Diploma holders on the judgment in the case of Union of India v. N. Hargopal (supra) and it was submitted that calling names from the Employment Exchanges was sufficient and there was no need to give any advertisement. 12.It was then submitted on behalf of the Diploma holders that they were already selected in some of the Zilla Parishads and since they were so selected their selection could not be affected now. Reliance was also placed in this behalf on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka)3, reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 405. It is, however, material to note as to what the Apex Court has observed in paragraphs 7 and 11 of the judgment, which is to the following effect: "It is true that a candidate does not get any right to the post by merely making an application for the same, but a right is created in his favour for being considered for the post in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the existing recruitment rules. If a candidate applies for a post in response to advertisement issued by Public Service Commission in accordance with recruitment rules he acquires right to be considered for selection in accordance with the then existing rules. If a candidate applies for a post in response to advertisement issued by Public Service Commission in accordance with recruitment rules he acquires right to be considered for selection in accordance with the then existing rules. This right cannot be affected by amendment of any rule unless the amending rule is retrospective in nature." As against this submission on behalf of the selected diploma holders it is relevant to note that way back in the year 1991 in the case of (Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India)4, reported in 1991(3) S.C.C. 47 , a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has held that candidates included in merit list has no indefeasible right to appointment even if a vacancy exists. It is further observed that 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. Same view is reiterated in para 8 of a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (S. Renuka v. State of A.P.)5, reported in 2002(5) S.C.C. 195 , wherein the Apex Court observed that it is settled that no right accrues to a person merely because a person is selected and he or she is put on a panel. In fact, in (Union of India v. O. Chakradhar)6, reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C.W. 872, the Apex Court has recently held that where there is cancellation of the entire selection process, issuance of individual show cause notices to each selectee is not necessary. 13.In view of the position as is seen from the above, an additional affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of the State Government by Smt. Kunda Gosavi, Deputy Secretary, affirmed on 20th December, 2002. In para 4 of this affidavit, it is accepted that the Zilla Parishads ought to have given wide publicity but in fact that has not been carried out. It is stated that the authorities of the State are ready to give wide publication afresh by issuing directions to all Zilla Parishads for the purpose of advertisement in the local newspaper whereby all concerned candidates will have proper knowledge for having an opportunity to apply. It is stated that the authorities of the State are ready to give wide publication afresh by issuing directions to all Zilla Parishads for the purpose of advertisement in the local newspaper whereby all concerned candidates will have proper knowledge for having an opportunity to apply. It is further made clear in this affidavit that the Zilla Parishads will be informed by the department to issue proper advertisement in the local newspaper having wide publicity, inviting applications from the Agriculture Diploma holders and also from the Agriculture Graduates or persons having higher qualification. It is further stated that all Employment Exchange offices and likewise agencies will be informed through Zilla Parishads to send the names of Agriculture Graduates as well as Agriculture Diploma holders and eligible candidates to the respective Zilla Parishads. 14.Reliance was also placed on behalf of the diploma holders on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Arun Tewari v. Zilla Mansavi Shikshak Sangh)7, reported in 1998(2) S.C.C 332 . That was a case wherein under the operation blackboard scheme sponsored by the Central Government, the Madhya Pradesh Government was to appoint about 7000 and 10000 Assistant Teachers and the scheme was to be implemented within the 8th plan period. The candidates were called from the Employment Exchanges. The procedure of inviting applications from the Employment Exchanges, instead of by advertisement, was challenged. The Apex Court had held that calling the names from the Employment Exchange as per the procedure, as is observed in para 20 of the judgment, has been resorted to looking to the requirements of a time-bound scheme. Besides, the Court noted that the original applicants had contended that if the posts had been advertised, many others like them could have applied but they did not possess the requisite qualification for the post. Besides, as the Court noted, nobody who had requisite qualification had complained that he was prevented from applying because advertisement was not issued. Besides, the exigencies of the situation required a speedier process of selection and appointment and the applications were invited through Employment Exchanges for the year 1993 only. The Apex Court relied upon the judgments in the case of Union of India v. Hargopal (supra) and (Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration)8, reported in 1992(4) S.C.C. 99 , to approve the recruitment through Employment Exchanges. The Apex Court relied upon the judgments in the case of Union of India v. Hargopal (supra) and (Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration)8, reported in 1992(4) S.C.C. 99 , to approve the recruitment through Employment Exchanges. The Court, however, did note that in the case of Excise Supdt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao (supra) these judgments were distinguished and the Court had observed that better course would be to invite applications from Employment Exchanges as well as to advertise. Similar is the position in another case decided by this Court in the case of (Ramdas Jape v. State of Maharashtra)9, in Writ Petition No. 817 of 2001, decided on 19th September, 2002 pronounced on 11th October 2002 (unreported). In that matter also in the case of Shikshan Sevak Scheme, the another Division Bench of this Court has upheld the names being called from the Employment Exchanges only. It is material to note that the situation of an entire category of candidates (graduates) getting excluded was not there in either of the cases of Arun Tiwari and Ramdas Jape (supra). In fact, in Arun Tiwaris case the Apex Court has observed that prescribing higher qualification cannot be considered as violative of Article 14. 15.We have considered the rival submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioners, who are graduates in Agriculture as well as canvassed by the diploma holders. As we have noted earlier, the concerned Government Resolution in terms says that preference will be given to Agriculture Graduate. If that is so it clearly implies that they are eligible for being considered. The submission of the diploma holders cannot be accepted that for getting this preference, the graduate must first have a diploma and then the graduation. We have been shown that these are two different courses, one after 10th standard (diploma) and another after 12th standard (degree) and there is hardly any candidate who has done both. Inspite of there being the provisions in Clause 2 of the Government Resolution, in view of the deficiency in Clause 12, the particulars appear to have been called from the Employment Exchanges and other authorities only with respect of diploma holders. Inspite of there being the provisions in Clause 2 of the Government Resolution, in view of the deficiency in Clause 12, the particulars appear to have been called from the Employment Exchanges and other authorities only with respect of diploma holders. It is also seen that the requisitions which have been sent to the Employment Exchanges have been sent in pursuance to this resolution of 6th June 2001 and the clarificatory Clause 3 of the subsequent corrigendum dated 12th June 2001 does not appear to have been acted upon. It is true that from the charts given by the State Government, in some of the Zilla Parishads the names of graduate candidates have been recommended but that more so is an exception rather than a rule. Thus, it is seen that out of 33 Zilla Parishads, the names of graduates have been forwarded by the Employment Exchanges in 8 of them. This must be the result of some for the officers being vigilant, whereas some other offices in-charge of the Employment Exchanges, just following the Clause 12 of the Resolution, forwarded the names of only diploma holders. This forwarding of names of the eligible candidates thus cannot be left to the discretion of the officers concerned in-charge of the Employment Exchanges. It undoubtedly results into an inequitable position. The State Government has explained the factual position, with chart, after taking information from all Zilla Parishads, including the aforesaid five Zilla Parishads, here selection process was completed but appointment orders were not issued. These statements have not been contradicted by the Zilla Parishads. 16.It is, therefore, necessary that the Employment Exchanges and the concerned authorities ought to be informed that the graduates are also eligible and if their names are registered with them they ought to be forwarded to the concerned Zilla Parishads. The last affidavit of the State Government, referred to above, accepts this position. Similarly, it is also necessary that the advertisement also ought to be given by the Zilla Parishads. This is because as pointed out by Mr. Deshmukh many of the graduates do not get registered with the employment exchanges but they prefer to be registered with the authorities of the concerned universities and they can have this information only through advertisement. The State Government has assured that the necessary advertisement will also be asked to be issued by the Zilla Parishads. Deshmukh many of the graduates do not get registered with the employment exchanges but they prefer to be registered with the authorities of the concerned universities and they can have this information only through advertisement. The State Government has assured that the necessary advertisement will also be asked to be issued by the Zilla Parishads. 17.The stay granted by this Court has been operating since September 2001 and the appointments to these 1545 posts is, therefore, not being carried out. In para 5 of the above referred last affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, it is therefore assured that the necessary steps will be taken hereinafter expeditiously. The Zilla Parishads will be asked to give advertisement and the Employment Exchanges will be asked to send the names and the process is expected to be completed by 15th January, 2002 and thereafter the selection is to be completed by the end of March 2003. It is also stated that the age limit of 30 years will be as on 6th of June, 2001. It is quite possible that many of the candidates who had then applied would now be beyond the age limit. The State Government has, therefore, stated in para 4 of the affidavit that the cut off date for age limit etc. will be as already declared vide Government Resolution dated 6th June, 2001 and that will be taken into consideration. It is further stated in this affidavit that the names received earlier by all respective Zilla Parishads, through various modes, will not be disturbed and the candidates who are recommended by various modes will not be required to apply again for these posts. This removes much of the suffering which the candidates would otherwise have to undergo if they are required to re-apply. In our view this last affidavit of the State Government takes care of much of the grievances which are being raised in this petition. 18.The State Government in the last affidavit has stated that the Government is proposing to amend the rules in future for any such contingency that would arise and for keeping ratio amongst the diploma holders and the degree holders. That will be a matter for the State Government to look into for future vacancies. It is made clear that it will not have any bearing on the posts which are under consideration in this matter. That will be a matter for the State Government to look into for future vacancies. It is made clear that it will not have any bearing on the posts which are under consideration in this matter. 19.Before we part with the matter, what is seen from this litigation is that for contractual appointment for 11 months and that too on a salary of Rs. 2500 per month, a large number of youngsters are fighting this litigation. That shows the difficulty in getting employment and it is this unfortunate scenario which has led the graduates also to insist that they ought to be considered, as per the Rules, along with the diploma holders. They are undoubtedly entitled to insist upon this inasmuch as the rule does provide that way. The situation and the general problem can be remedied only when the employment opportunities improve. 20.In the circumstances, we pass the following order: (A) The select lists of Gram Sevaks prepared by Bhandara, Gondiya Sangli, Nagpur and Sindhudurg Zilla Parishads are hereby quashed and set aside. (B) The State Government is directed to act as per the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary affirmed on 20th December 2002, referred to earlier, namely, to invite applications from the Agriculture Graduate candidates also through the Employment Exchanges and other agencies along with the diploma holders. The age limit, as per the G.R. will be reckoned as on 6-6-2001. (C) The Government will also direct the Zilla Parishads to issue necessary advertisements in the widely circulated newspapers in the concerned district by 15th of January, 2003 inviting the applications of graduates also and complete the selection process by the end of March 2003 as assured in the above affidavit. Those who have already applied for these posts may however not apply once again and their earlier applications will also be considered. (D) Rule is made absolute as above. In the facts and circumstances we do not Award any costs. Rule made absolute. -----