Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-This petition has been filed by Tourism Officers Association challenging the amendments made under the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962. By the said amendment, the post of Assistant Director encadered in Rajasthan Tourism Service Rules, 1976 has been included in the post to be filled under the Rules of 1962, for which Combined Competitive Examination will be held to the extent the direct recruitment is permitted thereunder. The petitioners claimed themselves to be employees serving in the Tourism Department and eligible for promotion against promotion quota and do not claim to be appointed against the direct recruitment quota. 2. It is not the case of petitioners that by this amendment, the direct recruitment quota or the ratio between the direct recruitment and promotion quota as envisaged under Rules 1976 has been disturbed or the promotion quota has been closed and in that view of the matter, it appears to us that the petitioners have not shown any subsisting interest in so far as providing law for laying down the procedure for recruitment against the direct recruitment quota. Apparently, the petition appears to have been filed to see that the vacancies against the quota available for direct recruitment are not filled and those vacancies may be made available to be filled from promotion quota, in addition to 50% of the available quota. We are of the opinion that this subterfuge of seeking appointment in excess of quota provided for promotion under the rules is not permissible. 3. So far the validity of rule is concerned, the entire contention raised in this petition appears to be misconceived. Merely by inclusion of the post amongst the posts for which the Combined Competitive Examination can be held for direct recruitment, the eligibility criterion changes. For direct recruitment, minimum educational qualification remains the same as provided in Rules of 1962 under which the post exists. Merely by inclusion of the post amongst the posts for which the Combined Competitive Examination can be held for direct recruitment, the eligibility criterion changes. For direct recruitment, minimum educational qualification remains the same as provided in Rules of 1962 under which the post exists. In Combined Competitive Examination, it is inherent that while according to the academic qualifications, the candidate may appear in the combined examination with option to be appointed against one or another post in which he is found to be eligible, if there is any post, for which apart from the educational qualification, the experience is required merely of clearing Combined Competitive Examination he may not be eligible to be appointed against that post until he holds additional qualification provided for the post. Therefore, the apprehension that experienced persons would be appointed as Assistant Directors from amongst the persons who are not eligible for the appointment cannot be sustained. Thus, there is no flaw in the amendment effected in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, a reply was submitted by the respondents stating that in pursuance of selection made in 1991, three more appointments have been given vide Annexure R/1 dated 28.02.1994 to three persons; namely Shri Sanjay Pande, Shri Nand Lal Alavada and Shri Ghanshyam Gangwal. The appointment of these three persons have not been challenged nor any information has been furnished whether or not they hold the eligibility or experience required for appointment to the post of Assistant Director through direct recruitment. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, an application was moved on 01.09.1997 for early hearing alongwith application for placing on record certain documents which have emanated from the Department of Tourism, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur since 19.04.1991 pointing out that the Tourism Department is also of the opinion that the recruitment to the post of Assistant Director by combined competitive examination has misfired and it has been requested for making a separate selection for the post of Assistant Director from suitable persons holding the requisite qualification. From these documents, it further appears that one of the two appointed candidates who has been impleaded as party, Shri Vinod Kumar had not joined, however, Shri Rambal Meena has joined in pursuance to the order dated 11.04.1991. 6. From these documents, it further appears that one of the two appointed candidates who has been impleaded as party, Shri Vinod Kumar had not joined, however, Shri Rambal Meena has joined in pursuance to the order dated 11.04.1991. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also stated that considering the interest of the members of the petitioners Association, who claimed their right to be considered against the promotion quota, a large number of candidates have been appointed to fill in the promotion quota. .7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, particularly keeping in view that the petitioners have not chosen to appear for direct recruitment examination and one of the persons against whom averments of ineligibility have been made has not made a party, three persons who were appointed in pursuance of the Rules, 1976 their eligibility criteria has also not been challenged and the fact that since 1991 no fresh selection has been made, we deem it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- .(i) the respondents to make an enquiry about the persons appointed by direct recruitment by Combined competitive examination whether they hold requisite qualification at the time of appointment; (ii) if such persons do not hold the requisite qualification including experience required as per the Rules of 1976 and they are continuing on the post, their case may be considered by their substantive appointment from the date they acquired requisite qualification for appointment and the period until they acquired requisite qualification shall be considered for inter se seniority amongst such direct recruits only but such period may be ignored for any other purposes. (iii) it may also be considered whether in the light of principle enunciated by Supreme Court, the selection list of the persons prepared in 1991 could be operated after one year so as to extend the benefit of selection to the candidates eligible in 1991 only while filling the vacancies which has arisen subsequently. If there is violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the appointment given contrary to the rules must be held to be ultra vires. However, before taking any action against any such appointed persons, an opportunity of hearing be given to them and, thereafter, appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with law. 8. If there is violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the appointment given contrary to the rules must be held to be ultra vires. However, before taking any action against any such appointed persons, an opportunity of hearing be given to them and, thereafter, appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with law. 8. Since, the matter of de-linking the post of Assistant Director by Combined competitive examination is under consideration of the Government itself , at this juncture, we refrain ourselves from pronouncement about the eligibility or otherwise of such post amongst the posts for which the recruitment is to be held by Combined competitive examination. 9. The petition is accordingly disposed of . 10. No orders as to costs.