JUDGMENT 1. - Both these petitions were heard analogously and are being disposed of by the present determination. 2. We have heard Dr. P.S. Bhati and Mr. Shyam S. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G.R.Punia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 3. The facts in brief are that in response to the notification dated 29.7.2008 issued by the respondent no.1 initiating the process for filling up in all 98 posts of Junior Judicial Assistant including 27 posts of general category, the petitioners offered their candidature as open category candidates. In the select list, which was published thereafter following the written test, the name of the petitioners appeared and accordingly, they took the type test as scheduled, whereafter, on 23.5.2011, a merit list of 70 successful candidates was published in which the petitioners-Vishal Singh & Harsh Aboti (Writ Petition No.115/2012) and Yogendra Modi (Writ Petition No.5940/2012) were placed at serial no.58, 59 and 61 respectively. Thereafter, vide order dated 1.6.2011, 41 candidates were appointed as Probationer/Trainee Junior Judicial Assistant. The names of the petitioners did not figure therein. Thereafter, by order dated 19.7.2011, appointment of 12 candidates named therein was cancelled. On the very same day i.e. 19.7.2011, by another order, 13 candidates were appointed and the last candidate in the said order i.e. at serial no.13 was Ms.Kirit Gupta D/o Vinod Gupta belonging to general category. 4. While the matter rested at that, according to the petitioners, one Swaroop Singh sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking to be acquainted with the number of vacancies left unfilled and the steps contemplated by the concerned authorities to fill up the same. By a communication dated 1.12.2011, the Deputy Registrar (Judl.)-cum-State Public Information Officer, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur addressed to Swaroop Singh, it was conveyed that 41 candidates category wise had been provided appointment and that the issue with regard to the remaining candidates would be addressed as per the decision of the concerned authorities in due course. By notification dated 17.12.2001, a fresh process was initiated for appointment to the posts of Junior Judicial Assistant which indicated amongst others that thereby 4 posts in the general category were sought to be filled-up. By notification dated 17.12.2001, a fresh process was initiated for appointment to the posts of Junior Judicial Assistant which indicated amongst others that thereby 4 posts in the general category were sought to be filled-up. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate writ, order or direction to provide them with appointment before resorting to any recruitment pursuant to the process initiated by notification dated 17.12.2011. 5. The respondents no.1 and 2 in their reply have pleaded that out of 98 posts advertised, 49 were backlog vacancies for SC/ST candidates. While admitting that out of 70 successful candidates figuring in the merit list, appointment for 41 candidates category-wise had been made vide order dated 1.6.2011, it has been clarified that thereby 27 candidates of the general category had been accommodated. It has been pleaded that out of 41 candidates appointed, only 28 joined including 19 candidates of the general category. To fill up the remaining posts, appointment order was made on 19.7.2011 and 8 general category and 5 OBC category candidates were recruited. Pursuant to this order, all candidates joined including the last in the order i.e. Ms.Kirti Gupta of the general category who stood at serial no.55 in the merit list. The respondents have clarified that thereby all 27 unreserved category posts were filled up. According to the respondents, out of 41 candidates, who were given appointment initially, the appointment of one Vivek Kumar Gour (serial no.9 in the appointment order) was cancelled on 9.6.2011 and 3 other candidates (2 from open category and one from SC category) had resigned after joining. These 3 vacancies were thus consciously decided to count towards future vacancies. The respondents have thus pleaded that as all 27 unreserved category candidates had joined and that having regard to the merit position of the petitioners, they could not have been accommodated against the same, their prayer for directing appointment is untenable. 6. Mr. Bhati has urged that the merit list dated 23.5.2011 was being operated from time to time and having regard to the fact that the life term thereof was one year, all vacancies, for which the process had been undertaken, ought to have been filled up therefrom and thus, considering the merit position of the petitioners, a direction for their appointment, as sought for, ought to be issued. The learned counsel has urged that a fresh process for recruitment could not have been initiated encompassing vacancies that had remained unfilled in the first exercise. To endorse this plea, reliance has been placed on the letter dated 1.12.2011 of the Deputy Registrar (Judl.)-cum-State Public Information Officer, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. 7. Mr. Punia in reply has contended that as all the 27 vacancies earmarked for the general category had been filled up by the candidates of that category of higher merit compared to the petitioners, the petitions are misconceived. According to him, the vacancies occurring due to the resignation of the candidates after joining were validly construed to be future vacancies and thus, the challenge to the process initiated by the notification dated 17.12.2011 is wholly untenable. It being not the case of the petitioners that any candidate inferior in merit compared to them has been appointed, no interference is called for, he urged. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts, we are inclined to sustain the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents. Admittedly, none of the candidates appointed in the general category was inferior to the petitioners in merit. There is also no dispute that all the 27 posts earmarked for the general category had been filled up by the candidates of that cagtegory in order of merit. Even assuming that the merit list dated 23.5.2011 had a life span of one year, the decision of the authorities to treat the vacancies that had occurred due to the resignation of the candidates after joining as future vacancies cannot ifso facto be faulted. Only because the names of the petitioners figured in the merit list, it does not vest with them with any inviolable right to claim appointment. The information furnished to Swaroop Singh by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.)-cum State Public Information Officer, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur also in our view does not detract from the course of action taken by the respondents or confer a right on the petitioners to claim appointment on the basis thereof. 9. The petitions, therefore, lack in merit and are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed in both the files.Petition Dismissed. *******