JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The appellant-RPSC has filed these Special Appeals against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 09.02.2015, by which he has given directions, in paragraph 24, as follows:- “24. In view of the discussion made above, the instant writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The decision dated 15.8.2012 taken by the respondent Commission rejecting the candidature of the petitioners is hereby quashed. The respondent Commission is directed to invite the petitioners for exclusive interviews to be held for selection process of 2011 in furtherance and in terms of the advertisement dated 8.3.2011 and such of the petitioners who are declared successful in interview, shall be offered appointment on the post of Veterinary Officers. As conceded by the counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners so appointed in pursuance of the above directions shall be placed in the order of seniority below the last candidate who has already been given appointment in pursuance of the advertisement dated 8.3.2011. In the event of being appointed, the petitioners shall be entitled to notional monetary benefits from the date the last candidate was appointed in pursuance to the aforesaid selection process.” 3. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present Special Appeals, are that the posts of Veterinary Officer were advertised by RPSC on 08.03.2011. The respondents/petitioners had obtained the Bachelor Degree of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, from the private colleges on 04.05.2010, and were registered by the State Veterinary Council. The degrees obtained by the petitioners from the Mahatama Gandhi and Apollo Veterinary Colleges, were not recognized by the Veterinary Council of India, and accordingly, the Veterinary Council of India directed the State Veterinary Council, to remove the names of the respondents from the State register on 26.05.2010. 4. The written examinations were held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 08.03.2011, in which the respondents succeeded and were called for interview. At that stage, the RPSC did not permit them to appear in the interview, on the ground that their names have been removed from the register of the State Veterinary Council on 26.05.2010. 4. The written examinations were held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 08.03.2011, in which the respondents succeeded and were called for interview. At that stage, the RPSC did not permit them to appear in the interview, on the ground that their names have been removed from the register of the State Veterinary Council on 26.05.2010. The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners, in which the interim orders were passed on 13.09.2012, directing that if the respondents make any appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Veterinary), in consequence of the selection process initiated under the advertisement dated 08.03.2011, the same shall be subject to final decision of the writ petition. The respondents were further directed that if appointment orders came to be issued, a necessary stipulation regarding pendency of the writ petition and the order dated 13.9.2012, shall be mentioned therein. The similar orders were passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9716/2014. 5. The private medical colleges challenged the order of the Veterinary Council of India and the State Veterinary Council. The writ petition was dismissed. The judgment of the High Court was challenged by the private medical colleges before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, vide order dated 05.01.2012, stayed the effect and operation of the judgment dated 17.11.2011, and finally decided the batch of Civil Appeals, arising out of different SLPs', in Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine Vs. Rajasthan State Veterinary Council & Anr., by judgment dated 25.07.2014, and made certain observations, directing the Central Government to include the Apollo College and Mahatama Gandhi College, in the First Schedule of Indian Veterinary Council Act, for the purposes of recognition of B.V.Sc. and A.H. Degree, and to give possible legal solution to the students, who have already passed out from these colleges, with further directions to take steps to transfer the students, who have been admitted in the colleges, to other recognized colleges. 6. and A.H. Degree, and to give possible legal solution to the students, who have already passed out from these colleges, with further directions to take steps to transfer the students, who have been admitted in the colleges, to other recognized colleges. 6. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court and considering the interim orders in the writ petitions, by which the rights of the petitioners were protected, learned Single Judge passed an order, directing the RPSC to interview the petitioners, in pursuance to the selection process of 2011, and to recommend those who are declared successful in the selections, for offering appointment to the post of Veterinary Officers, with further directions that their seniority will be below the last candidate, who has already been given appointment. 7. The RPSC has challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge, on the ground that the Commission had completed the selection process, and had forwarded the list of selected candidates to the State Government on 09.11.2012, in pursuance to the requisition. No selection process is now pending, nor any orders have been issued by the State Government to conduct the interview, to be held of the candidates. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the RPSC, that the directions issued by the High Court will affect the results of the selections as well as the appointment orders, issued by the State Government. 9. We do not find any justification for the RPSC to challenge the judgment of learned Single Judge, on the ground that the selection process is complete, and that there is no fresh requisition from the State Government, to interview the candidates, whose interests are protected. In our opinion, the RPSC cannot take up this defense against the judgment, when the interests of the respondents were protected by the interim orders, and by which the appointments made in pursuance to the selections advertised on 08.03.2011, were made subject to the result of the writ petition. 10. The State Government has not filed any Special Appeal against the judgment directing RPSC to hold the interviews and, if necessary, revise recommendations. 11. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has adjusted the equities, in pursuance to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which the degrees obtained by the petitioners were held to be valid. 12. Both the Special Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 13. 11. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has adjusted the equities, in pursuance to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which the degrees obtained by the petitioners were held to be valid. 12. Both the Special Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 13. A copy of the judgment will be placed in the connected file.