Honble CHAUHAN, J.–This case has an extremely convoluted history as this case has not only travelled from this Court to the Honble Supreme Court, but is also co-related to a petition filed at the Principal Bench of the High Court at Jodhpur. In order to understand the extent of controversy involved, it is imperative that the facts of the case be narrated in detail. The facts of the case are as under: (2). Although the present appeal has been filed by number of appellants, this Court is concerned only with the case of Dr. B.L. Chopra, appellant No.7. For, the controversy revolves only around him. (3). Dr. B.L. Chopra was initially appointed on adhoc basis on the post of Assistant Professor (Orthopaedics) vide order dated 12.8.1991. The adhoc appointment was to last till candidates, regularly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (`R.P.S.C. for short), were available. On 10.12.1993, an advertisement for regular appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors was issued by the R.P.S.C. Dr. B.L. Chopra along with eleven other persons filed a writ petition, registered as S.B.C.W.P. No. 446/1994, before this Court. In the writ petition, they prayed that their services should be regularised without their having to face the written examination (the screening test) and they should be selected only on the basis of the interview. Vide judgment dated 15.9.1995, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioners, including Dr. Chopra, should be exempted from the written test, but they had to face the interview. Aggrieved by the said judgment, both the petitioners and the R.P.S.C. filed appeals against the said judgment. The present appeal is the one filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 15.9.1995. However, during the pendency of the appeal the R.P.S.C. took the interview of the appellants, including Dr. Chopra and selected them for the said posts without asking them to sit for the written test. Although other appellants, whose results were declared, were allowed to continue on the regular basis from the date of their selection, Dr. Chopras services were terminated vide order dated 2.7.1996. Therefore, Dr. Chopra filed a stay application before this Court. Vide order dated 11.7.1996, this Court directed that Dr. Chopras services shall not be terminated. Despite the direction of this Court, the respondents did not implement the said order. Therefore, Dr. Chopra filed a contempt petition before this Court. Chopras services were terminated vide order dated 2.7.1996. Therefore, Dr. Chopra filed a stay application before this Court. Vide order dated 11.7.1996, this Court directed that Dr. Chopras services shall not be terminated. Despite the direction of this Court, the respondents did not implement the said order. Therefore, Dr. Chopra filed a contempt petition before this Court. However, the contempt petition was directed to be decided at the time of the final hearing of the appeal. Later on, vide judgment dated 3.5.2001, this Court had dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellants and the one filed by the R.P.S.C. But, surprisingly while dismissing the said appeals, this Court did not give any decision with regard to Dr. B.L. Chopra, whose termination had been stayed by this Court. Therefore, Dr. Chopra filed a review petition against the judgment dated 3.5.2001. (4). Meanwhile, since the R.P.S.C. was aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.5.2001, it filed a S.L.P. before the Honble Supreme Court. But, the same was dismissed by the Apex Court, in limine, vide its order dated 10.9.2001. (5). In the review petition, this Court directed the R.P.S.C. to file an affidavit with regard to the selection of Dr. Chopra and for not appointing and continuing him on the post of Assistant Professor, although a person lower in merit, namely Dr. M.K. Aseri, was appointed and continued. In the affidavit filed by the R.P.S.C., they admitted that, indeed, Dr. Chopra was selected. However, he could not be appointed as Dr. M.K. Aseri had filed a petition at the Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur and was granted a stay in his favour vide order dated 26.11.1997. Therefore, the R.P.S.C. claimed that because of the stay granted by the Principal Bench, Dr. Chopra could not be appointed and could not be permitted to continue on the post of Assistant Professor. (6). Vide judgment dated 27.2.2004, the Principal Seat at Jodhpur decided the case of Dr. M.K. Aseri. The Court clearly held that the posts of Asstt. Professor (Ortho.) were increased from nine to fifteen, out of which three posts were reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidates in accordance with the roster system. Furthermore, that three candidates namely, Dr. Ratan Lal Dayma, Dr. Babu Lal Khajoti and Dr. Bhanwar Lal Chopra had secured 54, 52 and 51 marks respectively. By the dint of his merit, Dr. Professor (Ortho.) were increased from nine to fifteen, out of which three posts were reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidates in accordance with the roster system. Furthermore, that three candidates namely, Dr. Ratan Lal Dayma, Dr. Babu Lal Khajoti and Dr. Bhanwar Lal Chopra had secured 54, 52 and 51 marks respectively. By the dint of his merit, Dr. R.L. Dayma was selected against the general quota. Therefore, Dr. M.K. Aseri is to be treated as selected against the third post reserved for Scheduled Caste category. Thus, while Dr. Chopra was to be selected against the vacancy No.2, Dr. Aseri was to be selected against vacancy No.3 in the Scheduled Caste category. Curiously, even after the said pronouncement of the Principal Seat, while Dr. M.K. Aseri has been appointed and has been permitted to continue on the post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner is yet to be appointed on the said post. Thus, clearly while a person, lower in merit has been appointed and is working on the post, the petitioner is still hoping that justice would be done to him. (7). When the review petition filed by Dr. Chopra came up for hearing on 5.5.2005, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the S.L.P. filed by the R.P.S.C. before the Apex Court was dismissed in limine. However, vide judgment dated 5.5.2005, the review petition was dismissed. Since, Dr. Chopra was aggrieved by the order dated 5.5.2005, he filed an application for recalling the said order, but the said application was also dismissed vide order dated 19.7.2005. (8). Left with no other option, Dr. Chopra filed a S.L.P. before the Apex Court. It was brought to the notice of the Honble Supreme Court that the respondents had admitted in the case of Dr. M.K. Aseri that Dr. Chopra was, indeed, selected, although not appointed. Moreover, it was equally brought to the notice of the Apex Court that vide order dated 11.7.1997 this Court had granted stay against the termination of Dr. Chopras services. Considering these two facts, vide order dated 13.10.2006 the Apex Court has remanded the case back to this Court for re-considering the case of Dr. Chopra on merits. Hence, this case before this Court. (9). A bare perusal of the facts narrated above lead to the following conclusions: (10). Chopras services. Considering these two facts, vide order dated 13.10.2006 the Apex Court has remanded the case back to this Court for re-considering the case of Dr. Chopra on merits. Hence, this case before this Court. (9). A bare perusal of the facts narrated above lead to the following conclusions: (10). Firstly, the vacancies for the posts of Assistant Professor (Ortho.) was increased from nine to fifteen. In accordance with the roster system, three vacancies were reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. Secondly, while Dr. Dayma was selected on the basis of his merit and was placed in the general list, Dr. B.L. Khajoti was selected against vacancy No.1, Dr. Bhanwar Lal Chopra was selected against vacancy No.2 and Dr. M.K. Aseri was selected against vacancy No.3. Thirdly, in the case of Dr. M.K. Aseri, the respondents had unequivocally admitted that although Dr. Chopra was selected, he could not be appointed as a stay order had been passed in favour of Dr. M.K. Aseri. Fourthly, although Dr. Chopras services were terminated vide order dated 2.7.1996, vide order dated 11.7.1996 this Court had stayed his termination order. Fifthly, despite the order dated 11.7.1996, Dr. Chopra was never taken back into the service. Sixthly, in order to seek justice Dr. Chopra has been running from pillar to post from 1996 till today. Seventhly, one the respondents have admitted the fact that Dr. Chopra was selected and the fact that Dr. Aseri is less meritorious than Dr. Chopra, there is no cogent or legal reason for not appointing Dr. Chopra on the post of Asstt. Professor (Ortho.). The respondents cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold simultaneously. For, it is a settled principle of law that a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate simultaneously. (11). Although the learned counsel for the respondent has also admitted before this Court that Dr. Chopra ought to have been appointed, but he has contended that after the lapse of panel, it is not possible to appoint Dr. Chopra after almost two decades. However, in the case of Purshottam vs. Chairman, M.S.E.B. & Anr. (11). Although the learned counsel for the respondent has also admitted before this Court that Dr. Chopra ought to have been appointed, but he has contended that after the lapse of panel, it is not possible to appoint Dr. Chopra after almost two decades. However, in the case of Purshottam vs. Chairman, M.S.E.B. & Anr. ((1996) 6 SCC 49), the issue raised before the Apex court was "whether a duly selected person being appointed and legally kept out of employment on account of untenable decision on the part of the employer, can be denied the said appointment on the ground that the panel has expired in the meantime". Answering this issue the Honble Supreme Court held as under: The right of the appellant to be appointed against the post to which he has been selected cannot be taken away on the pretest that the said panel has, in the meantime, expired and the post has already been filled up by somebody else. Usurpation of the post by somebody else is not on account of any defect on the part of the appellant, but on the erroneous decision of the employer himself. In that view of the matter, the appellants right to be appointed to the post has been illegally taken away by the employer. (12). Therefore, in that case the Apex Court directed Maharashtra State Electricity Board to appoint the appellant. (13). In the present case, Dr. Chopra has been denied his appointment without any rhyme or reason. He continues to be denied his appointment despite the fact that the respondents have admitted that he was duly selected and is more meritorious than Dr. Aseri. Merely because the panel has lapsed, Dr. Chopra cannot be denied his rightful appointment. For, the panel has lapsed for no fault of Dr. Chopra, but because of the fault of the respondents. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in directing that Dr. Banwari Lal Chopra should be appointed from date when Dr. M.K. Aseri was appointed. He shall further be entitled to all the consequential benefits except the benefit of salary. For these reasons, the judgment dated 3.5.2001 stands modified to the extent mentioned above.