JUDGMENT 1. . - The dispute is in regard to selection to the post of Junior Compounder/Nurse in Ayurved Department for the year 1996-1997. Separate advertisements were issued for the above years on 1.5.1996 as also 2.8.1997 respectively. The selections were to be made as per the Circular issued by the State Government on 16.11.1989 by which merit list was to be prepared on the batch-wise basis. The batches were identified by the year when the candidates completed their requisite training. Whenever vacancies occurred or notified, names were to be called through Employment Exchange and after preparing the merit list on batch- wise basis, the candidates of earlier years were to be given preference, as per their merit while giving the appointment. The above process of selection to the post in question continued till the year 1999 when the State Government vide order dated 19.4.1999 withdrew the earlier Circular dated 16.11.1989 and decided to hold selection to the above posts as per the provisions of the relevant rules to the extent that the merit list was to be prepared of all the candidates applying as per their marks obtained in the training irrespective of the year of completion of training prior to the selections were to be made. 2. It may be pertinent to mention here that order dated 19.4.1999 came to be challenged by many of the candidates before this Court with the prayer that the selections should be made as per the Circular issued on 16.11.1989. This Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Sharma and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in 1999(2) RLR Page 755: [1999(8) SLR 283 (Raj.)] , while holding the earlier Circular dated 16.11.1989 as absolutely dehors the rules, found no illegality in the order dated 19.4.1999 thereby dismissing the writ petition. The above judgment of this Court in Mahesh Chandra Sharma (supra) further came to be affirmed upto the Supreme Court and all selections subsequent to the year 1999 were made as per the provisions of the Rules of 1966 as considered by this Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Sharma (supra). 3. Though having participated in the process of selection for the year 1996-1997 as per the Circular dated 16.11.1989, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction before the trial Court on 15.4.2002 with the prayer for consideration of his candidature for the year 1996-97. 3. Though having participated in the process of selection for the year 1996-1997 as per the Circular dated 16.11.1989, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction before the trial Court on 15.4.2002 with the prayer for consideration of his candidature for the year 1996-97. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2003. However, while reversing and setting aside .he above judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court allowed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 thereby directing the defendants- appellants to consider the plaintiff-respondent for appointment to the post in question for the year 1996-1997. Hence the present appeal. In execution of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff-respondent had been given appointment. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the judgment cited at the bar. 5. The selections in question in the year 1996-1997 were made as per the Circular dated 16.1 1.1989 and appointments were also given accordingly as per the merit prepared as per the practice (that) existed at the relevant time. The selections, appointments and even the Circular dated 16.11.1989 never came to be challenged by any candidate. It was only after the Circular dated 16.11.1989 came to be withdrawn by the State Government vide order dated 19.4.1999, the-suit came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent for appointment to the post in question for the year 1996-1997 for which the selection process had long been over and the appointment had also been given. Apart from the fact that having participated in the process of selection without any objection, the plaintiff-respondent could not have sought relief in the year 2002 when the criteria for the selection was changed. The lower appellate Court seriously erred not only on facts but also on law as well while directing the defendants-appellants to consider and give appointment to the plaintiff-respondent against the vacancies of the year 1996-1997 as per the order dated 19.4.1999 which did not even exist at the relevant time of selection. As has already been referred above, neither the Circular dated 16.11.1989 nor the selection made as per the above Circular was ever challenged. This Court had only upheld the legality and validity of order dated 19.4.1999. As has already been referred above, neither the Circular dated 16.11.1989 nor the selection made as per the above Circular was ever challenged. This Court had only upheld the legality and validity of order dated 19.4.1999. No judgment or order has been placed on record to show that any directions were ever issued to prepare fresh merit list for the years 1996-1997 and give appointment accordingly. 6. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained in eyes of law. Mr. G.S. Gill, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that even otherwise, the plaintiff-respondent did not come in merit on batch-wise basis as also the total fresh merit list (that) was prepared irrespective of the batches for the years in question. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment-and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the suit is dismissed as having no merits. Since the plaintiff-respondent had no right for appointment, the defendants-appellants are now at liberty to terminate his services in accordance with law since conditional appointment does not create any right to continue, moreso, when the suit itself has been dismissed by this Court. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******