Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Both the petitions, since involve common questions of law, are disposed of by this order. 2. Facts, in brief , are that an advertisement No. 21/86 dated 18.08.1986 (Annexure R/1) was published in daily Newspaper "Rajasthan Patrika" dated 18.06.1986 by Sikar Depot of respondent-Corporation, by which applications were invited for the post of Conductors. In pursuant of advertisement (Annexure R/1), both the petitioners submitted their applications and after participation in process of selection, Ram Khiladi (S.C.) was placed at S.No. 347 and Amar Singh (Gen.) at No. 360 in a penal of 1098 candidates prepared by respondents. Candidates whose name appeared at S. No. 1 to 310 were considered for appointment in Sikar Depot, as per their merit in the panel; and without resorting to applicants like petitioners whose names found place in panel, candidates figured from 701 to 900 were given appointment vide order dated 08.05.1987 (Annexure 2) in Jodhpur region. None of the petitioners was ever informed about further appointments made in Jodhpur region and this fact came to notice of one of petitioners from Shri Vijaypal who belongs to their district and is shown at S.No. 791 in the panel and given appointment in Jodhpur region, immediately sent legal notice. Hence this writ petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner contends that once they were higher in merit qua those whom appointments have been offered by respondents in Jodhpur region, without any reason or rhyme, their fair right of consideration has been jeoparadised and action of respondents is also whimsical, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In support of his contention, Counsel has placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in Shankarsan Das vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 , R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India, 1995 (Supra) (2) SCC 230, and Virender S. Hooda vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (3) SCC 696 and of this Court in Suwalal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (3) RDD 1529. 4. Respondents have filed their reply and there is conflict in Para 4 of the reply to both writ petitions. 4. Respondents have filed their reply and there is conflict in Para 4 of the reply to both writ petitions. However, in the reply to CWP 6674/92, merit position of petitioner Ram Khiladi has not been disputed put it has been inter alia averred that since he did not turn up for training alongwith original testimonials about proof of his eligibility; as such he could not be appointed; and so far as appointment made in Jodhpur region is concerned, complete ignorance has been shown as is evident from bare perusal of the reply, itself . 5. Nothing has been placed on record to show about any information ever sent to the petitioner calling upon him to appear alongwith original testimonial for training and there is no requirement even under advertisement (Annexure R/1) that candidates selected and placed in penal have to appear for training alongwith testimonials. 6. So far as reply in CWP 4089/92 is concerned, it has been inter alia averred in Para 4 that tow panels were prepared one for Sikar and another for Jodhpur; and Sikar Depot was to give appointment upto S. No. 700 and from S. No. 701 onwards, the penal was to be given effect to for Jodhpur Depot; but in Sikar depot, only upto S. No. 51 in General Category and thereafter appointments were given to Scheduled Caste candidates and no junior persons in General Category were given any appointment in Sikar Region and there was panel for Jodhpur region from S. Nos. 701 to 1098, no discrimination can be claimed but from additional affidavit filed by respondents under directions of this Court dated 011.2005, advertisement (Annexure R/1) has been placed on record and which has been issued by Sikar Depot of the respondent for Sikar, Jhunjhunu and Khetari only and since request was received from Jodhpur Depot of respondent vide letter dated 25.04.1987 (Annexure R/2) to send names of incumbents who are shown in the select panel, to meet out emergent situation, on the said letter/request, there is Note endorsed on 28.04.1987 to transfer Sikar Panel to Jodhpur from S. Nos. 701 to 900 and accordingly, appointments were made in Jodhpur Depot vide order dated 08.05.1987 (Annexure-3). 7. 701 to 900 and accordingly, appointments were made in Jodhpur Depot vide order dated 08.05.1987 (Annexure-3). 7. Counsel for respondents contends that panel was prepared in 1986 and last appointment was made in 1987 -that too in Jodhpur depot and writ petition has been filed in 1992 after almost five years; as such writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, itself . That apart, as regards merits, Counsel further contends that with respect to Sikar depot, no person lower in merit out of panel in dispute, has been considered for appointment while in Jodhpur depot, appointments were made under special orders passed by the Authority in order to meet out emergent need, as such no parity qua them can be claimed by petitioners; and merely because they were placed in order of merit, no indefeasible right can be said to be conferred in their favour. 8. Counsel further contends that indentical writ petitions of those who too were fellow applicants like petitioners and participated in process of selection in pursuance of advertisement (Annexure R/1) issued by Sikar Depot, have been dismissed by this Court, therefore, these instant petitions may also be dismissed. 9. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Before I proceed to examine the dispute on merits, I may hasten to observe that earlier writ petition was dismissed by this Court because of mis-statement of facts made by respondents. CWP 2872/97 was dismissed in limine on 011.1998 on the premise that petitioner was at No. 402 and no persons lower in merit was given appointment by respondents. CWP 3470/93 alongwith 3855/93 and 3367/93 were dismissed only on the ground of delay and merits of issue involved in petitions were not examined by this Court, whereas before me sufficient material has been placed on record by petitioner to justify about delay and so also merits of dispute; so what has been observed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in dismissing writ petitions were on facts placed on record therein for consideration. That apart, as held by Apex Court in Sanjay Dhar vs. J&K Public Service Commission, 2000 (8) SCC 182 , right of an incumbent, if otherwise sustainable, cannot be allowed to be lost merely because of an appointment having been made wittingly or unwittingly in defiance of the judicial order of the High Court. 10. So far as preliminary objection about delay is concerned, suffice it to say that delay by itself is not a ground which dis-entitles petitioner to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. But delay accompanied by negligence amounts to latches and that can be a ground for declining to entertain writ petition. Rationale behind it is that in number of cases, right of parties by passage of time get settled and issue of writ will be doing greater injustice if settled rights are unsettled. 11. There is no such limitation for filing writ petition but by Judge-made law, delay has been considered as one of the factors in not exercising discretion of the Court. However, if facts are brought to the notice of Court that action of the authority is wholly arbitrary and whimsical and third partys rights are not in any manner going to be defeated or interfered with in my opinion, delay should not be considered as tool to deny rightful claim of applicants who approach this Court. Dealing with an objection regarding delay and latches in filing the petition, facts of each case will have to be considered independently and no straitjacket formula can be applied by entertaining or for refusing to entertain a petition after lapse of such time. 12. Apex Court in R.S. Deodhar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 259 , observed as follows: -"The rule which says that the Court may not inquire into belated and stale claims is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. The question is one of discretion to be followed on the facts of each case." "It may also be noted that the principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there was reasonable explanation for the delay." "It may be noticed that the claim for enforcement of fundamental right of equal opportunity under Article 16 is itself a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 32 and this Court which has been assigned the role of a sentinel on the qui viva for protection of the fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to be persuaded to refuse relief solely on the jejune ground of laches, delay or the like." Keeping in mind these guiding principles, in instant case, none of the petitioners was ever informed or called upon at any point of time to join training or to submit their original testimonials, whereas on the contrary I find there is no such requirement even under advertisement (Annexure R/1) that candidates selected and placed in the panel have to undergo any training, as the case set up by respondents before this Court and that apart, respondents have also made mis-statement in the reply by submitting conflicting statements that Ram Khildai (petitioner), since had not turned up for training and failed to submit original certificates about proof of his eligibility, appointment could not have been conferred to him. On statement of facts referred to by respondents, if taken at its face value that petitioners did not turn up despite notice served, yet on question put to the Counsel to show about persons who are lower in merit from S. No. 348 have been given appointment or not, he was unable to justify the plea as referred to in Para 4 of the reply. In such facts situation, when there is no information to either of parties, one can bonafidely presume that the authority will not flout panel prepared and circulated to incumbents and make appointment in order of merit but if the same has been deviated and appointments are made of such candidates who are much lower in merit and petitioners have disclosed this fact in the writ petition that it came to their notice only when they met Shri Vijaipal Singh whose name finds place at S. No. 795 was given appointment in Jodhpur depot and who disclosed that persons much lower in merit have been considered for appointment, delay in my opinion, in itself , is not sufficient to defeat their claim especially when settled rights of third parties are not going to be unsettled by passage of time but if delay is considered to be a ground to dis-entitle relief to the petitioners, that in my opinion will certainly cause injustice to the petitioners who despite being higher in order of merit are still deprived from seeking appointment, more-so when they are not at fault at any stage. 13. In instant case, when respondents have utterly failed to discharge their legal obligations in giving appointment in order of merit as prepared under panel in question prepared in pursuance of advertisement No. 21/86 (Annexure-R/1), at least such plea is not available for them to defeat rights of applicants like petitioners who were deprived from consideration for appointment particularly when undeniably, applicants who were much lower in merit have been appointed in Jodhpur depot out of panel prepared under advertisement 21/86 (Annexure-R.1). 14. However, while admitting petition, this Court was conscious of the fact that selections of 1986 have been questioned by petitioner in 1992, in such circumstance also, in my opinion delay in question has been sufficiently explained by petitioner; consequently, preliminary objection stands over-ruled. 15. Let me advert to merits of dispute raised herein. 14. However, while admitting petition, this Court was conscious of the fact that selections of 1986 have been questioned by petitioner in 1992, in such circumstance also, in my opinion delay in question has been sufficiently explained by petitioner; consequently, preliminary objection stands over-ruled. 15. Let me advert to merits of dispute raised herein. As held by Apex Court in R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India, (Supra), no doubt, a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected, but appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or on its whims decline to make the appointment because when a person has been selected and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily there is no justification to ignore him for appointment and there has to be justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. 16. In Shankarsan Das vs. Union of India, (Supra) Apex Court observed:-"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. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test and no discrimination can be permitted." (Emphasis added) 17. In view of what has been laid down by Apex Court and applying principles (Supra) in instant case, as per material on record, it is not in dispute that applicants lower in order of merit as per panel prepared by respondents from S. Nos. 701 to 900 were considered and appointed by respondents in its Jodhpur depot and no reasonable justification has been offered as to why panel duly prepared by respondents has been deviated while giving appointment in Jodhpur depot and why those who were higher in merit like petitioners, were deprived from seeking appointment. 701 to 900 were considered and appointed by respondents in its Jodhpur depot and no reasonable justification has been offered as to why panel duly prepared by respondents has been deviated while giving appointment in Jodhpur depot and why those who were higher in merit like petitioners, were deprived from seeking appointment. Justification offered by respondents that panel upto S. No. 700 was prepared for Sikar depot and from S. No. 701 onwards were for Jodhpur depot, in my opinion is factually incorrect and mis-stated besides misleading. 18. Advertisement (Annexure-R/1) was issued only by Sikar Depot as is depicted from careful perusal and in pursuance thereof , panel in question was prepared by Sikar depot under authority of respondent. Vide letter dated 25.04.1987 which is xerox copy produced by respondent alongwith additional affidavit as Annexure-R/2, when a request was made by Jodhpur depot, authority competent put a Note and directed thereon to send names from S. Nos. 701 to 900 out of panel in question prepared by Sikar depot in pursuance of advertisement 21/86 for their appointment in Jodhpur depot, no justification has been tendered as to why those who were higher in merit have been ignored. 19. So far as writ petition filed by petitioner Ram Khildadi is concerned, justification has been offered that petitioner has not turned up for training and failed to submit eligibility certificate etc. but this fact is also misleading and misstatement of fact because applicants lower in order of merit out of panel in question qua him or after S. No. 345 were not considered for appointment at all, and despite opportunity afforded to the Counsel for respondents, nothing has been placed on record to show as to whether letter or intimation was ever sent to petitioner calling him to join training. It is always expected from public authority to come with clean hands but I find that in instant case, even reply filed in both writ petitions having common cause, different and conflicting pleas were raised with an object to defeat rightful claim of petitioners for one or the other reason. Such practice of respondents is highly deplorable and deserves to be deprecated. 20. This is also not a case of respondents that those who were appointed in Jodhpur depot were for short term or are not in service. Such practice of respondents is highly deplorable and deserves to be deprecated. 20. This is also not a case of respondents that those who were appointed in Jodhpur depot were for short term or are not in service. In such circumstances, in my opinion, denial of appointment to petitioners who were indisputably higher in order of merit, under panel in dispute qua those who were given appointment in Jodhpur depot, were wholly arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and their legitimate right for seeking appointment has seriously been infringed by respondents in breach of their merit prepared in pursuance of advertisement and so also principles of natural justice. 21. It is true that persons higher in order of merit qua petitioner were left out and certainly, they have a better right in seeking appointment but this fact cannot be ruled out that despite being higher in order of merit they have not approached the Court if at all felt aggrieved and certainly by now much water has flown and by passage of time delay may now be fatal for them but in my opinion, merely because incumbents being higher in merit have not approached for redressal of their grievance that, itself , cannot be made a ground to non-suit such applicants like petitioners who too are higher in merit qua those who were given appointment in Jodhpur depot. It has been considered by Apex Court also in Neelima vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 169 and Ashok @ Somanna Gowda vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 80 = 1991 (4) JT 160 (SC), wherein Apex Court observed as under:- "Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Karnataka pointed out that there are many other candidates who had secured much higher marks than the appellants in case the above criteria is applied for selection. In view of the fact that appointments under the impugned rules were made as back as in 1987 and only the present appellants had approached the Tribunal for relief , the case of other candidates cannot be considered as they never approached for redress within reasonable time. We are thus inclined to grant relief only to the present appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time." 22. Consequently, both the writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. We are thus inclined to grant relief only to the present appellants who were vigilant in making grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time." 22. Consequently, both the writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to give appointment to petitioners on the post of Conductor in pursuance of panel prepared under advertisement dated 18.08.1986. However, petitioners will be entitled for notional seniority and continuity in service with all other benefits as extended to applicants appointed vide order dated 08.05.1987 (Annexure-2 in CWP 4908/92), but they will be entitled for monetary benefits only from the date they join service. Compliance of this order be made within two months. No costs.