JUDGMENT 1. - We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. None has appeared for respondent No. 4 who is only a proforma respondent. 3. Respondent No. 4 Rajendra Singh Shekhawat and appellant Rajendra Singh Udawat preferred a joint writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 600/1997 alleging that notwithstanding their name was included in the select list prepared by the respondent for giving appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III, while persons lower in order of merit than the petitioners have been given appointment, the petitioners have been denied appointment. 4. The admitted facts now before us are that Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, petitioner No. 1 was placed at serial No. 12 and petitioner No. 2 Rajendra Singh Udawat, appellant before us, was placed at serial No. 124 in the said list. The fact of giving appointment to the persons below both the petitioners was not disputed. The only contention raised by the respondents in their reply was that since the petitioners were at best B.Ed. (Special) (Blind), therefore, they can only be considered as trained teacher for blind Students and their B.Ed. Certificate would not qualify them for giving appointment as Teacher Gr. III in the schools where there are no blind students. This contention did not find favour with the learned Singe Judge. 5. However, while granting relief, the learned Single Judge made distinction between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2. 6. The learned Single Judge found that since petitioner No. 1 stood in merit-list at serial No. 12, and he was in main list, and there was no fault on the part of petitioner No. 1, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed on the post of Teacher Gr. III and his petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, .1 respondents were directed to offer appointment to petitioner No. 1 as Teacher Gr. III as per his merit. 7. However, while coming to the second petitioner, appellant before us, the learned Single Judge distinguished his case on that ground that name of s petitioner No. 2 Rajendra Singh Udawat was not found in the main select list but it was found in reserve list. There is a difference between select list and reserve list and period of reserve list would have expired now. Therefore, there is no case so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned. There is a difference between select list and reserve list and period of reserve list would have expired now. Therefore, there is no case so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned. With these observations, the writ petition qua petitioner No. 2 was dismissed. A review to application filed by the appellant was also dismissed. 8. Apparently, in the facts of the present case, the distinction drawn by the learned Single Judge appears to be without distinction. Once it is admitted that reserve list has also been operated and persons below the present appellant from reserve list were given appointments, the distinction Is between the select list and reserve list obliterates into irrelevance. So far as question of practicing discrimination in giving appointment by breaking order of merit is concerned, the fact remains that if a select list has been operated, whether main or reserve, it has to be operated in order of merit of candidates. It was open for the respondents not to operate the reserve list at all or to operate it only upto point. Once having operated, there should be special reason for ignoring the order of merit in the reserve list also. It is not a free wheel choice with the respondents to pick and choose anybody from the reserve list and give an appointment in breach of order of merit in the reserve list Both the petitioners have come well in time before expiry of select list or the reserve list and the reason contended by the respondents for deviating from order of merit was not sustained. the result could not be different. 9. Admittedly, the appointments have been given to the persons below the appellant also in the order of merit. In these circumstances, the appellant was also entitled to the same relief as the respondent No. 4 or petitioner No. 1 was entitled to. We are informed that so far as judgment of learned Single Judge in merit is concerned, there is no State appeal. 10. In these circumstances, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment under appeal to the extent it denies relief to the appellant-petitioner No. 2 is set aside. The writ petition qua petitioner No. 2 Is also allowed. The respondents are directed to offer him appointment in pursuance of selection in question, if he does not suffer from any other disqualification, within four weeks. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment under appeal to the extent it denies relief to the appellant-petitioner No. 2 is set aside. The writ petition qua petitioner No. 2 Is also allowed. The respondents are directed to offer him appointment in pursuance of selection in question, if he does not suffer from any other disqualification, within four weeks. No order as to costs.Appeal Allowed - Judgment of Single Judge in Respect of Petitioner Set Aside. *******