R.C. Gandhi, J.—These petitions involve common questions of facts and law for determination and are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners seek issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint them pursuant to their selections to the posts of Primary Teachers against primary Teachers Examination-2004 and further direction to the State/respondent not to send any requisition to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the Commission’) to fill up the posts. 3. The respondent/Commission issued Advertisement Notice dt. 02.06.2004 inviting applications from desirous candidates seeking consideration for selection and appointment to the posts of Primary Teachers. The petitioners, being eligible, applied for the posts. 4. The Commission advertised 25,712 posts. Subsequently, these posts were increased to 35,712. The petitioners appeared in the Examination and were declared selected. The result of the examination was declared on 12.02.2005. The respondent/Commissioner, Elementary and Primary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner, Jaipur sent a requisition to the commission for sending names of 33,900 selected candidates but the Commission sent names of only 32,000 candidates and declined to send the names of remaining candidates. The petitioners though are the selected candidates but their names were not sent for the reason that a situation arose before the Commission that in the selection many candidates secured equal marks and all could not be accommodated against the advertised vacancies. The Commission, in order to resolve this controversy, adopted a criteria for forwarding the names of the candidates i.e. who is older in age, has secured higher education or secured higher division in Senior Secondary Examination, amongst such candidates and accordingly the panel of the candidates was prepared and sent. 5. The petitioners, aggrieved with the method and criteria adopted by the Commission, have approached the Court on the ground that they have been discriminated though they are equally meritorious and deserve selection and appointment and that they have been deprived of selection and appointment only because they are younger in age vis-a-vis the candidates whose names have been sent for appointment. 6. The respondents have filed their reply in some of the petitions and prayed by a statement at the bar that the reply filed in some of the petitions may be treated as reply filed in other petitions also. This prayer was allowed. 6. The respondents have filed their reply in some of the petitions and prayed by a statement at the bar that the reply filed in some of the petitions may be treated as reply filed in other petitions also. This prayer was allowed. The Commission has stated in the reply that the criteria adopted by the Commission does not suffer from any bias or arbitrariness. All the candidates have been dealt with by one yardstick and the criteria adopted has been applied to all the candidates uniformly. The petitioners though have secured equal marks vis-a-vis other such candidates in the written examination yet could not be absorbed because of less number of vacancies referred by the State to the Commission. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the respondents still have the vacancies as some of the selected candidates have not joined and apart from that the Government has taken a decision to fill up further 1474 posts from amongst the candidates who have qualified the Primary Teachers Examination, 2004. No such evidence has been annexed by the petitioners with the writ petition to justify their stand. Learned counsel for the Commission, in rebuttal, has submitted that all the vacancies have been filled up and the recommendations made by the Commission have also been honoured by the State Government to fill up the vacancies. The vacancies caused vacant because of non-joining of the candidates have also been filled up. Against the vacancies which have fallen vacant because of leaving the service after appointment, the petitioners have no right of their appointment against these vacancies as held by the Supreme Court in case title State of Punjab vs. Raghbir Chand Sharma and another reported in AIR 2001 SC 2900 observing as under: “With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to’ be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and, at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. The Circular Orders dt. 22.03.1957, in our view, relates to select panels prepared by the Public Service Commission and not a panel of the nature under consideration. The Circular Orders dt. 22.03.1957, in our view, relates to select panels prepared by the Public Service Commission and not a panel of the nature under consideration. That apart, even as per the Circular Orders as also the decision relied upon for the first respondent, no claim can be asserted and countenanced for appointment after the expiry of six months. We find no rhyme or reason for such a claim to be enforced before Courts, leave alone there being any legally protected right in the first respondent to get appointed to any vacancy arising subsequently, when somebody else was appointed by the process of promotion taking into account his experience and needs as well as administrative exigencies.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has laid much stress to convince the Court that the petitioners viz-a-viz the selected candidates who have secured equal marks are also entitled to be selected and appointed being equally meritorious. The edifice of this argument is appealing. However, taking into consideration the stand of the respondents that the vacancies to the extent of the selected candidates were not available and the candidates who have secured equal marks could not be absorbed, has merit. The selection created an anomalous situation for the Selection Authority to be dealt with. It could be dealt with, had there been statutory provisions in the Rules to deal with it otherwise the Commission is duty bound to adopt rationale criteria. There is no provision in the selection Rules which could be followed, therefore, the Commission has formulated therefore stated criteria. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Rule 274 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, which reads as under : “274. There is no provision in the selection Rules which could be followed, therefore, the Commission has formulated therefore stated criteria. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Rule 274 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, which reads as under : “274. Preparation of a merit list by the Committee.-(1) Committee 5 shall prepare a merit list of candidates considered suitable for appointment to each grade or category of posts in the district and shall on receipt of requisition from the Panchayat Samities or Zila Parishads allot candidates from the list in the order in which their names occur in the list: Provided that: (i) the number of candidates in the merit list prepared by the Committee shall not exceed one and a half time the number of vacancies actually available at the time such merit list is prepared; and (ii) the merit list of candidates so prepared shall remain valid for a period of one year in general and upto end of academic session for teachers after expiry of such period, it will be deemed to have lapsed. (2) The Panchayat Samities or Zila Parishads shall take into consideration the requirement of Rule 261 while sending their requisitions to the Committee.” 11. The aforesaid Rule does not contemplate any such provision to deal with a situation where the candidates are available having secured equal marks and the Selection Authority could accommodate them despite having less vacancies. 12. There is no dispute that the merit list has not been prepared according to the marks secured in the examination. The only dispute is that the candidates who have secured equal merit have not been selected because of their younger age vis-a-vis such selected candidates and should have been absorbed by the Selection Authority being equally meritorious and denial of selection and appointment amounts to discrimination. 13. The selection of the candidates by the Selection Authority can be made only against the advertised posts. This preposition of law has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case title State of U.P. and Others vs. Rajkumar Sharma and Others, reported in 2006(3) SCC 330 observing as under: “Filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised would be violative of the fundamental rights granted under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (See: Union of India & Ors. vs. Ishwar Singh Khatri & Ors. 1992 Supp. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (See: Union of India & Ors. vs. Ishwar Singh Khatri & Ors. 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 84, Gujrat State Dy. Executive Engineers, Association vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 591; State of Bihar & Ors. vs. The Secretariat Assistant S.E. Union, 1986 & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 736 ; Prem Singh & Ors. vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors, 1996 (4) SCC 319 ; Surendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., ( AIR 1998 SC 18 ), and Kamlesh Kumar Sharma vs. Yogesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. ( AIR 1998 SC 1021 ).” 14. To get rid of the aforesaid situation, the Commission adopted the criteria (i) a candidate shall be entitled to selection if he is older in age; (ii) higher qualified (iii) secured higher division in Senior Secondary Examination, to select the candidates out of the equally meritorious candidates to the extent of availability of the posts. The Commission applying the above mentioned criteria has made the selection and recommended the panel of selected candidates. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the criteria adopted by the Commission amounts to sacrificing the merit of the equally meritorious candidates. Undoubtedly, the selected candidates are having equal merit, notwithstanding that the Commission has to select the candidates equal to the number of advertised vacancies. The Commission has adopted the criteria to solve such a anomalous situation. A candidate who is having higher academic qualification or is older in age if given preference in equivalence, it does not violate any right or provide cause to plead discrimination for the reason that a candidate younger in age has other opportunities to appointment vis-a-vis the candidates touching the outer limit of the prescribed age. Such criteria is germane and rationale. Such candidates need such consideration as after crossing of the prescribed age, is having no opportunity to seek appointment. Therefore, I feel that the criteria adopted by the Commission has rationale merit in it. 16. Taking into consideration the availability of the posts, equivalence of merit and the criteria adopted to resolve the situation, I do not feel that either any illegality has been committed or the petitioners discriminated by the respondents. Therefore, I feel that the criteria adopted by the Commission has rationale merit in it. 16. Taking into consideration the availability of the posts, equivalence of merit and the criteria adopted to resolve the situation, I do not feel that either any illegality has been committed or the petitioners discriminated by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not made out that the Commission has either violated any Rule for adopting such criteria or the criteria is not uniformly applied or there could be such other mode or method whereby the petitioners could also be accommodated against the advertised vacancies. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in these petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. * * * * *