JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III in pursuance of advertisement No. 1/98 issued by the respondents. According to petitioner, the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste and as per the reservation policy there should have been 16% posts reserved for the member of the Scheduled Caste whereas the respondents by taking the help of notification Annex. P/2 dated 11th March, 1998 provided reservation of 45% posts for the Scheduled Tribe and only 5% for the members of the Scheduled Caste and because of this reason only, the petitioner's name included in the select list Annex. P/3. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a clarification was also issued by the State Government in response to the letter of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara dated 27th July, 1998. By this clarification dated 9th August, 1998, it was conveyed to the Zila Parishad, Banswara that as per the notification dated 11th March, 1998 it applies to the posts which are having the Grade from S.No. 1 to 7 and it has no application to the post of Teacher Grade-III, which false in the category-9 of the salary structure. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the respondents is absolutely illegal. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, in fact, the notification dated 11th March, 1998 was issued to supplement the earlier notification dated 22nd March, 1995 and notification dated 7th Nov., 1996. In the notification of the year 1995, the posts of teachers were already included whereby reservation has been made upto 45% for the member of the Scheduled Tribe and 5% for the member of Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be included in the select list. Though, the copy of notification of the year 1995 has not been placed on record, but it has been shown in court today. 4. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the notification dated 22nd March, 1995 was in existence when the said posts were advertised and the notification dated 11th March, 1998, which was issued to include certain posts, cannot be said to be an order or notification in supersession of the earlier notification dated 22nd March, 1995. It is clear from the notification dated 11th March, 1998 that by this notification certain posts of the Panchayat Raj Department were also given benefit, which is available to the other posts including the post of Teacher Gr.III in notification of the year 1995. There is no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that it can be interpreted by the language of the notification dated 11th March, 1998 that it is in supersession of the notification dated 22nd Marc, 1995 because of the reason that it is mentioned in the notification itself that it shall apply to the posts of all the departments of the notified areas. I am unable to accept this submission because even by implication of this notification dated 11th March, 1998, it cannot be read to interpret to hold that the notification dated 22nd March, 1995 was superseded and benefit, which was given to all other posts has been taken away and it has been provided to the only posts, which are mentioned in the notification dated 11th March, 1998. 5. It is relevant to mention here that the posts were advertised in the year 1998, select list was published in the year 1999 and the appointments have already been given to the candidates. The petitioner did not choose to implead any of the candidates, who were given appointments. The appointment of the selected candidates and given appointment cannot be cancelled without giving opportunity of hearing to that candidates. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.Therefore, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. *******