ORDER : 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails judgment and order dated 16.02.1994, passed by the Gujarat Higher Secondary Tribunal, Ahmedabad ("the Tribunal" for short) in Application No. 189/1992, filed by the petitioner, whereby the claim of the petitioner that she should be treated as having been appointed as Higher Secondary Teacher from August, 1992, has been negatived and the petitioner has been directed to be appointed as Higher Secondary Teacher with effect from 01.03.1994. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Secondary Teacher since November, 1983 at Shri Champaklal Navchetan Vidyalaya, Kapadvanj, District Kheda. She was teaching in the Secondary Section of the said school at the relevant period of time. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner possesses the academic qualifications of M.A., B.Ed., Teachers Training Course in Needle Craft and she has also passed the examination for Hindi Rastra Bhasha Ratna. An advertisement was published in the newspaper on 16.11.1991, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary Teacher at the Sheth M.P. Municipal School, Kapadvanj (Respondent No. 1). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for the said post and appeared for the interview. The petitioner was selected for the said post, however no appointment order was given to her. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application, being Application No. 69/1992 before the Tribunal. By order dated 18.08.1992, the Tribunal disposed of the said application by directing that the applicant should be appointed as Assistant Teacher, as her selection has been made by following due procedure. The respondent school was directed to send the proposal for ratification of selection and appointment of the petitioner, within a period of 07 days from the date of the said order and respondent No. 3 (District Education Officer) was further directed to ratify the selection and appointment as per the Rules, within 15 days; thereafter the order of appointment was directed to be issued to the applicant. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid order, the petitioner was not given appointment as Higher Secondary Teacher. She, therefore, filed another application, being Application No. 189/1992 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that respondent No. 1-School had not carried out its earlier direction for giving appointment to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid order, the petitioner was not given appointment as Higher Secondary Teacher. She, therefore, filed another application, being Application No. 189/1992 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that respondent No. 1-School had not carried out its earlier direction for giving appointment to the petitioner. The Tribunal also found that respondent No. 1-School had sent the proposal for appointment of the petitioner for ratification to respondent No. 3-District Education Officer. However, before any decision by respondent No. 3 could be taken, the respondent No. 1-School appointed another candidate, namely Respondent No. 5 on the post in question. This appointment was ratified by respondent No. 3, who sanctioned the payment of salary to respondent No. 5. The Tribunal, with the consent of respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 3, directed that respondent No. 5 should be treated as surplus and be absorbed in another High School at Kapadvanj. However, the claim of the petitioner for appointment with effect from August, 1992 was rejected and it was directed that the appointment of the petitioner would be with effect from 01.03.1994, which is the date on which the appointment order was given to her. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the advertisement dated 16.11.1991, pursuant to which the petitioner has been appointed, shows that the post was advertised for a lady candidate. It is submitted that the petitioner was successful in the interview and was selected. Her name was placed at Serial No. 1 on the select-list prepared on 31.01.1992. That the names of only two lady candidates figured in the select- list, and the name of the other lady candidate figured below that of the petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner has further contended that in view of the fact that the post was advertised for a lady candidate, respondent No. 1-School could not have appointed respondent No. 5, who is a male candidate, on the said post and respondent No. 3 could not have ratified the said appointment and sanctioned the salary of respondent No. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner should have been appointed with effect from August, 1992, but her appointment is from 01.03.1994, on which date, she was given the appointment order. The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner should have been appointed with effect from August, 1992, but her appointment is from 01.03.1994, on which date, she was given the appointment order. The petitioner has been put to loss of service benefits, such as difference between the salary and allowances payable to her, as Higher Secondary Teacher for the period from August, 1992 to 01.03.1994, which is wrong and arbitrary as her name figured in the select-list and she should have been appointed with effect from August, 1992. That the petitioner is being deprived of appointment with effect from August, 1992 due to the acts of omission and commission of respondent No. 1-School as well as respondent No. 3-District Education Officer, but due to no fault of her own, therefore, this is a fit case, wherein the prayers made by the petitioner deserve to be granted. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate, that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed an affidavit-in-reply, and that there is no necessity for filing the same. He has proceeded to make his submissions, which are recorded here-in-blow :- (i) That the proposal for appointment of the petitioner was sent by respondent No. 1-School to the concerned Department after her selection. However, respondent No. 3 did not grant sanction, therefore, no appointment order could be issued to the petitioner. (ii) That respondent No. 5 was not appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.11.1991, as is clear from the select-list where only two names of lady candidates including the petitioner are mentioned. The appointment of respondent No. 5 has been approved by the office of respondent No. 3, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in his appointment. (iii) That the petitioner has been given appointment with effect from 01.03.1994 and there is no question of granting her any service benefits or treating her as being appointed with effect from 1992 when, in fact, she has been appointed much later. It is emphatically contended by the learned advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, that mere mention of the name of the petitioner on the select-list, does not confer any right of appointment to her, and her appointment becomes effective from the date on which the order is passed, and not earlier. It is emphatically contended by the learned advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, that mere mention of the name of the petitioner on the select-list, does not confer any right of appointment to her, and her appointment becomes effective from the date on which the order is passed, and not earlier. (iv) That the grant was received for the appointment of the petitioner from respondent No. 3 in 1994, therefore, the order of appointment of the petitioner has also been issued in 1994. On the above grounds, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and other documents on record. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 have been served with Notice of Rule, but have not put in an appearance before this Court. 6. Though the Tribunal has partly-allowed the application of the petitioner, the prayer for appointment with effect from August, 1992 has been rejected on the grounds that the sanctioned post in the School had already been filled-up by the appointment of respondent No. 5 and that the petitioner, though had been selected, had not been given any appointment order till 01.03.1994. The Tribunal found that in these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be given retrospective relief and her appointment cannot be deemed to have been made in 1992, when the appointment order is dated 01.03.1994. From the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the Tribunal has, with the consent of respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 3, directed that respondent No. 5 should be treated as surplus and should be absorbed in another school so that the petitioner can remain in respondent No. 1-School at Kapadvanj. 7. Though the advertisement dated 16.11.1991 reveals that the post of Higher Secondary Teacher has been advertised for a lady candidate, it does not emerge from the record, that the appointment of respondent No. 5 has been made pursuant to the said advertisement. The select-list dated 31.01.1992 contains the names of only two lady candidates, out of whom, the name of the petitioner is at Serial No. 1. It also appears that though she was selected, no appointment order was given to the petitioner till the year 1994. The select-list dated 31.01.1992 contains the names of only two lady candidates, out of whom, the name of the petitioner is at Serial No. 1. It also appears that though she was selected, no appointment order was given to the petitioner till the year 1994. It is the case of the petitioner that the management of the respondents-School did not forward the proposal for her appointment to respondent No. 3, whereas it is the case of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that though the proposal for appointment of the petitioner was sent to respondent No. 3, no sanction was accorded and respondent No. 5 was appointed with the approval of respondent No. 3. It, therefore, transpired that the only sanctioned post in the School was filled- up by respondent No. 5. It does not clearly emerge from the record in what circumstances respondent No. 5 was given appointment. The said respondent has not put in an appearance before this Court. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the order of the Tribunal is under challenge, this Court is called upon to examine the legality and validity of the order of the Tribunal and cannot embark on a separate inquiry into incidental issues. From the record, it is clear that though the name of the petitioner was at Serial No. 1 of the select-list, she was not given appointment after her selection in the year 1992, but has been appointed with effect from 01.03.1994. In these circumstances, whatever be the reason for not appointing her earlier, no benefit can accrue to the petitioner before the date of her appointment order, merely by virtue of her name being placed at Serial No. 1 on the select-list. The appointment order cannot be given retrospective effect as is being canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 16.02.1994 does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. 8. For the above stated reasons, the petition fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.