JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relates to appointment to services under M.P. Police Executive (Non Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997). Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997 provides that all appointments to the service after coming into force of these rules shall be made by the appointing authority and only after selection by one of the methods of recruitment specified in rule 6. Direct recruitment by selection through competitive examination is one of the method provided for under rule 6. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1997 prescribes for conditions of eligibility of candidate for direct recruitment. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1997 provides for list of candidates recommended by the Committee i.e. [Rajesh Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others] a list arranged in the order of merit of the candidates, who have qualified by such standards as fixed by the Committee, and of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes who though not qualified by such standard, are declared by the Committee to be suitable for appointment to the service with due regard to the maintenance of efficiency of administration. Rule 13 of the Rules of 1997 provides for appointment to the service from the select list and reads as under:- "13. Appointment of the Service from the select list- Final merit list for direct recruitment shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in written examination, physical proficiency test and interview. Appointment shall be made in order of seniority on the basis of preference given by candidate and availability of posts provided that only those candidates will be considered for the post of Platoon Commander/Subedar who obtain a minimum of 60% marks in the physical proficiency test." By way of amendment in the Rules of 1997, Rule 13A has been incorporated vide notification No.F 2(a)287-2010-B-4-II dated 4/3/2011 and reads as under:- "13A. Waiting List.- A waiting list comprising names of candidates numbering 10% of the advertised vacant [Rajesh Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others] posts shall be prepared in the order of merit. This waiting list shall remain valid for 3 months from the date of commencement of basic training. Waiting List.- A waiting list comprising names of candidates numbering 10% of the advertised vacant [Rajesh Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others] posts shall be prepared in the order of merit. This waiting list shall remain valid for 3 months from the date of commencement of basic training. If any selected candidate from final select list does not join in stipulated time, then candidates in waiting list will be offered appointment in the order of merit." 2. Appointment to the posts of Sub Inspector (Radio), Sub Inspector (Finger Prints) and Sub Inspector (Questioned Documents) are categorized into non-technical group and the posts of Subedar, Sub Inspector (Executive), Sub Inspector (Special Branch) and Platoon Commander are also categorized into non-technical group. These posts are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment by selection through competitive examination. The selection process involves written examination and physical proficiency test. Written examination has two papers each of 100 marks: (i) Hindi and English and (ii) General Knowledge and General Mental Ability. After conclusion of written examination, results are declared as per the rules. On the basis of written examination's results, physical proficiency test and interview are conducted. Thereafter, final select list is prepared in the order of merit as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1997 by the M.P. Professional Examination Board and sent to the department for appointment under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1997. 3. For the selection year 2011 total 49 posts were reserved for [Rajesh Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others] ex-servicemen candidates. Out of which, 45 posts were in non- technical group and 4 posts were reserved in technical group. Result of ex-servicemen candidates was not declared instantly due to various Court orders being passed by different Benches of the High Court and ultimately result was declared on 6/2/2012. One post in the non-technical group was kept vacant in compliance to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.286/2012 on 6/1/2012. Two posts in the non-technical group were kept vacant in connection with Writ Petition No.9203/2011 (Indore Bench) and Writ Petition No.8252/2012 (Gwalior Bench). Against 42 available vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen candidates, only 28 ex-servicemen candidates were found eligible for selection. Thereafter, such selected candidates were sent for training from 2/4/2012 at Jawaharlal Nehru Police Academy, Sagar and Rustamji Armed Police Training College, Indore. Against 42 available vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen candidates, only 28 ex-servicemen candidates were found eligible for selection. Thereafter, such selected candidates were sent for training from 2/4/2012 at Jawaharlal Nehru Police Academy, Sagar and Rustamji Armed Police Training College, Indore. Last date for reporting at the training institute was 31/5/2012. Among these 28 ex-servicemen selected candidates for different posts, petitioner-Rajesh Singh Sikarwar was also selected, however, in the merit list his name was lower and, therefore, he was offered appointment as Platoon Commander, whereas three other ex- servicemen among 28 ex-servicemen selected candidates, namely, Maharaj Singh Baghel, Bahadur Singh Parihar and Krishan Kant Tiwari were higher in the merit list and were offered the post of Sub Inspectors. However, as these aforesaid three [Rajesh Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others] persons were also selected for the selection year 2008, therefore, they had opted for their appointment on the post of Sub Inspector to be made out of the select list of 2008 and, therefore, they quit the post of Sub Inspector of the selection year 2011. 4. As provided for under Rule 13-A of the Rules of 1997, respondents have also prepared a waiting list comprising names of candidates to the extent of 10% of the advertised posts in the order of merit. The aforesaid three posts falling vacant were offered to first three persons in the waiting list and appointments were made. Out of three, two are respondents no.5 and 6. Thereafter, all were sent for training and accordingly issued regular appointment orders. Petitioner is aggrieved due to the appointment of wait listed candidates against the aforesaid three posts of Sub Inspectors on the premise that petitioner was higher in the merit. 5. Petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition No.3203/2012. This Court disposed of the aforesaid petition vide order dated 15/5/2012 with direction to decide petitioner's representation within sixty days. Respondents by the impugned order dated 13/7/2012 have considered petitioner's representation on merits and rejected the same. It has been held that under service rules candidates who were selected and placed in the select list in the order of merit for appointment, such selected candidates cannot be offered appointment to the post different from they are entitled [Rajesh Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others] to as per the merit list. It has been held that under service rules candidates who were selected and placed in the select list in the order of merit for appointment, such selected candidates cannot be offered appointment to the post different from they are entitled [Rajesh Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others] to as per the merit list. Three posts of Sub Inspectors against which the names of three selected candidates appeared in the merit list of the year 2011 since were offered appointment by the Court orders against the selection list of 2008, they had quit these posts and, therefore, such vacant posts, as per Rule 13A of the Rules of 1997, was required to be filled up amongst the candidates in the waiting list prepared in accordance with merit. It is, therefore, held that the petitioner Rajesh Singh Sikarwar was since after selection found place in the merit list and the post of Platoon Commander was offered to him and appointment made, thereafter no change can be effected under the service rules and accordingly, the representation was rejected. 6. Petitioner contends that persons in the wait list since had lesser marks than he, they could not have been offered appointment to the post of Sub Inspector and instead petitioner should have been offered the same, as the aforesaid posts had fallen vacant and petitioner was next in the merit list. In support of the aforesaid submissions, petitioner has referred to order of the co-ordinate Bench of Indore in Writ Petition No.3134/2012 and 3135/2012. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out rules under which offer of appointment, as sought, could be made. 7. Having gone through the order, facts in hand are distinguishable in nature, as in that case though the subject [Rajesh Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others] matter of issue involved in the writ petition related to selection of ex-servicemen candidates against the posts in non-technical group, but in respect of such fourteen vacancies which remained vacant due to non-availability of eligible candidates for which no merit list was prepared. In the said selection, merit list was prepared only of 28 ex-servicemen candidates, as stated above, and those fourteen vacancies were sought to be filled up by less meritorious persons than the petitioners therein without preparing the merit list. In the said selection, merit list was prepared only of 28 ex-servicemen candidates, as stated above, and those fourteen vacancies were sought to be filled up by less meritorious persons than the petitioners therein without preparing the merit list. It was contended that there was no merit list prepared for these fourteen vacancies and, therefore, in all fairness the respondents ought to have prepared revised merit list for filling up those fourteen vacant posts and persons higher in merit list should have been offered higher posts. That was not done. The aforesaid submission of the counsel for petitioners was held to have substantial force and accordingly the appointment against those fourteen vacancies by persons of less merit was quashed and the claim of the petitioners therein was allowed. In the instant case, merit list was prepared for 28 vacancies. Petitioner's name appeared in the merit list and his appointment to the post of Platoon Commander was in accordance with the preference shown with due regard to the merit position as provided for under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1997, which was accepted by the petitioner and thereafter he was sent for training. A waiting list in accordance with the merit position was also [Rajesh Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others] prepared under Rule 13A of the Rules of 1997 and as provided for under the rules and persons as per merit position were offered the post of Sub Inspector falling vacant due to the fact that selected candidates shown in the merit list prepared in respect of selection year 2011 had quit, as they were offered appointment to post of Sub Inspector pursuant to the selection and merit list prepared for the selection year 2008. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the aforesaid order in W.P. Nos.3134 and 3135 of 2012 is of no help and assistance to the petitioner. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order passed by this Court on 14/2/2013 in Writ Petition No.4824/2012. The said case also relates to selection of M.P. Police Executive (Non Gazetted Service) under the Rules of 1997 for filling up the posts of non-technical group from amongst the ex-servicemen and the dispute relates to candidates who are in the waiting list prepared under Rule 13A of the Rules of 1997. The said case also relates to selection of M.P. Police Executive (Non Gazetted Service) under the Rules of 1997 for filling up the posts of non-technical group from amongst the ex-servicemen and the dispute relates to candidates who are in the waiting list prepared under Rule 13A of the Rules of 1997. The petitioner therein submitted that though in the waiting list prepared in accordance with the merit, his name is below Gajendra Singh Lodhi, who is offered post of Sub Inspector (District Executive Force) and the petitioner therein was offered the post of Platoon Commander and since Gajendra Singh Lodhi had decided to forgo the post, he is entitled to be offered the post of Sub Inspector, as the candidates in the waiting list are to be offered appointment in the order of merit. The aforesaid contention of the [Rajesh Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others] petitioner was found to have substantial force and accordingly the Court upheld the claim of the petitioner therein and allowed the petition. This case is also distinguishable on facts. The impugned order dated 13/7/2012 has been passed bearing in mind the provisions as contained in the service rules. The Rules of 1997 regulates appointment of M.P. Police Executive (Non Gazetted Service). Appointment by direct recruitment by selection through competitive examination is one of the modes of appointment under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997. No other method than provided for under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997 can be adopted for making appointment to the service as provided for under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997. Under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1997, merit list is prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination, physical proficiency test and interview. Appointments are required to be made to service in order of seniority on the basis of preference given by the candidates and availability of post. Admittedly, selection list is prepared for 28 posts of non-technical group. Appointment of the petitioner as Platoon Commander is in the order of merit, seniority and on the basis of his preference under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1997. The petitioner accepted the same and on appointment, had gone for training. Admittedly, selection list is prepared for 28 posts of non-technical group. Appointment of the petitioner as Platoon Commander is in the order of merit, seniority and on the basis of his preference under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1997. The petitioner accepted the same and on appointment, had gone for training. Under Rule 13A of the Rules of 1997, one list comprising the names of candidates prepared in the order of merit is to the extent of 10% of the advertised posts valid for three months from [Rajesh Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others] the date of commencement of training which inter alia provides that if any selected candidate from final select list does not join in stipulated time, then candidate in the waiting list will be offered appointment in the order of merit. As three candidates offered the appointment to the post of Sub Inspector since did not join within the stipulated time, therefore, offer having been extended to the candidates in the order of merit from the waiting list is in accordance with law and no grievance in that behalf can be made by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.