ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant/writ petitioner claims to be selected in the single post which was reserved for dependant of Freedom Fighters in the group of employees to be taken in as Village Davelopment officers. ( 2 ) THAT there were advertisements is not denied: the due courses of selection is also admitted to have been undertaken. ( 3 ) IN the list of selected candidates published against the reserved post mentioned above, the name of Ajay Kumar Singh appeared. The admitted fact is that later it transpired that he was not in fact a dependant of a Freedom Fighter and his name was included because of forged documents filed by him. The writ petitioner was second in the list of candidates in the category of Freedom Fighter as dependent. He made a representation that he should be given the appointment since, after the dropping out of Ajay Kumar Singh the reserved single post could not be left vacant and he was in all fairness and justice the person to appointed to that post. There were recommendations also made in his favour but the appointment actually never came. The writ petitioner thus approached the Court and the Honble Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. His Lordship said "the law is well settled that even a select candidate has no legal right of appointment until a letter of appointment is offered to him. " With respect, we disagree the offer of a letter of appointment is the appointment. The right of appointment comes before that. This assumes, as is almost always the case, that the candidate remains willing through to take up the job. ( 4 ) IN the present case Mr. P. N. Saxena has appeared for the appellant. He submitted that the writ court which is a Court of equity. should grant relief to his client from the effect of fraud committed by Ajay Kumar Singh. ( 4 ) IN the present case Mr. P. N. Saxena has appeared for the appellant. He submitted that the writ court which is a Court of equity. should grant relief to his client from the effect of fraud committed by Ajay Kumar Singh. After the fraud of Ajay Kumar Singh is erased out, in a deemed fashion, by the writ Court and the select list is treated as drawn up, not as it was drawn up, but as it should have been drawn up, then and in that even the name of the writ petitioner Om prakash can be [sic] include a in the list of selected candidates and he will then be the only successful (and a reasonable) candidate for appointment in the post reserved for dependent of freedom Fighters. ( 5 ) IN our opinion, the argument is good and excellently put forward. It is further the law that if the posts for which selections have been made are not actually filled up by the joining of candidates who might later have withdraw, but that the withdrawal or not joining happened before the actual filling up of posts, then the ordinary course to be followed by the public respondents would be to draw upon the unexhausted merit list and give appointment to persons who are next in order or merit. The Supreme Courts judgment in Jai Narain Ram v. State of u. P. reported at A. I. R 1996 S. C. 703 is relevant for this case. Paragraph 6 and 7 from the said judgment are set out below: "6. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a reserved candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes. In view of the admitted position that four posts were reserved in the Finance Department in category 1 mentioned earlier and 4 selected. candidates appeared to have not joined in the service, as asserted in para 11 of the S. L. P and not specifically denied by the respondents in the counter- affidavit in para 6 as referred to earlier, it is clear that the appellant also is the 4th candidate in the order of merit would have been selected, had there been a requisition by the state Government for appointment of the resarved candidates. 7. Right to seek appointment to a post under Article 14 read with Article 16 (1) and (4) is a constitutional right to equality. 7. Right to seek appointment to a post under Article 14 read with Article 16 (1) and (4) is a constitutional right to equality. The State failed to perform its constitutional duty to requisition the P. S. C to recommend the next qualified person to the posts reserved for scheduled castes. Under these circumstances, the denial of appointment to the appellant and three others above is unconstitutional. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in denying the claim of the appellant for the appointment to the above post. " ( 6 ) WE refer to this judgment without the same being cited by either of the parties, but because the case is material in point. ( 7 ) FROM both these points of view, i. e. , the equitable point of view and the general applicability of service law, as laid down by the Supreme Court, the case of the writ petitioner/appellant is good and unanswerable. The order under appeal is set aside. The relief is granted to the writ-petitioner as prayed for in the writ petition. Appointment be granted to him immediately, in any event not later than a fortnight hereof. His services be continued to be accepted and he be paid salary as per rules and practice applicable. ( 8 ) THE appeal is allowed. . .