JUDGMENT : Mr. Alok Sharma, J. The Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (hereinafter 'the RRVPNL'), a State Government Undertaking advertised through Newspaper publication on 2/3-10-2013 for recruitment to 28 posts of Accounts Officers in the five Power Sector companies in Rajasthan-which aside of itself were the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, (RRVUNL), Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (JVVNL), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) and Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (JdVVNL). Of the aforesaid 28 posts, 16 posts were for the general category and of which three posts were reserved for female candidates in the general category. This is all admitted and not a matter of dispute. 2. The petitioner applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 2/3-10-2013 against a post reserved for female candidates in the general category, wrote examination held on 12-1-12014 with Roll No. 80401663, and secured 217 marks. The select-list was declared on 5-7-2014. Against the three vacancies in the quota of General Category (Female) Mahima Keshwani (231 marks), Surabhi Pareek (223 marks) and one Monika Sharma (217 marks) were selected. The petitioner despite 217 marks equivalent to Monika Sharma was placed at Serial No.42 immediately below her in the list of General Category (Female) candidate in view of her being younger to Monika Sharma in terms of Regulation 20(1) of the RSEB Officers' Service (Recruitment, Promotion, and Seniority) Regulations, 1974 (hereinafter 'the Regulations of 1974') which provides that in case two or more candidates acquire equal marks, then their date of birth shall be the deciding factor to determine their merit, i.e. the elder candidate shall be placed higher in the merit list. The petitioner was thus not offered appointment against the three vacancies in the quota of General Category (Female). Appointment orders to the selected candidates, including Mahima Keshwani and Monika Sharma were issued for joining on the post of Accounts Officers. However, Mahima Keshwani and Monika Sharma did not join despite their selection. 3. The petitioner's case is that she being 4th in the list of successful candidates against the three vacancies in the quota of General Category (Female) should have been offered appointment as Accounts Officer against one of the two vacancies reserved for female candidates in the general category, now available due to non joining of Mahima Keshwani and Monika Sharma. 3. The petitioner's case is that she being 4th in the list of successful candidates against the three vacancies in the quota of General Category (Female) should have been offered appointment as Accounts Officer against one of the two vacancies reserved for female candidates in the general category, now available due to non joining of Mahima Keshwani and Monika Sharma. Yet she was not, despite her best efforts including a representation to the Managing Director of the RRVPNL and her counsel's notice for demand of justice dated 9-2-2015 seeking her appointment on the post of Accounts Officer in the facts obtaining. In the circumstances, she approached this Court in SBCWP No. 4171/2015, which however on 13-4-2015 was withdrawn by her counsel with liberty to file representation seeking appointment against one of the two vacant posts of Accounts Officer reserved for female candidates in the General Category. Following liberty under the order dated 13-4-2015 in SBCWP No. 4171/2015, the petitioner submitted a representation. That was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 2-5-2015 without disclosing the reasons for her non appointment despite availability of two vacant posts of Accounts Officers for General Category (Female) overlooking the fact that she had secured as many marks as the earlier selected candidate Monika Sharma (217). It has been submitted that during this period the select list was operative for 12 months from the date of its preparation i.e. 5-7-2014/ 6-1-2015, and a fresh advertisement for the next recruitment process for direct recruitment not being issued. It has been submitted that, in the circumstance, the inaction on the part of respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Accounts Officer despite her merit and availability of two vacant posts in General Category (Female) due to non joining of Mahima Keshwani and Monika Sharma, is absolutely arbitrary as also unreasonable and warrants interference by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction by issuing appropriate directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a vacant post of Accounts Officer in any of its five Power Sector companies as per her merit. 4. The defence of the respondent to the case set up by the petitioner is that the Regulations of 1974 have been amended vide order No. 92 dated 6-8-2015, where under appointment to the post of Accounts Officer is to be made from amongst Chartered Accountants based on interviews. 4. The defence of the respondent to the case set up by the petitioner is that the Regulations of 1974 have been amended vide order No. 92 dated 6-8-2015, where under appointment to the post of Accounts Officer is to be made from amongst Chartered Accountants based on interviews. The amendment has been made effective from 1-4-2015. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is now presently not entitled to be appointed on the post of Accounts Officer on the basis of the select-list dated 5-7-2014/ revised select-list dated 6-1-2015. It has been submitted that the petitioner, despite her merit in the select-list dated 5-7-2014/6-1-2015 had in any event no indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Accounts Officer, remaining unfilled due to non joining of the two selected candidates Mahima Keshwani and Monika Sharma. Further the petitioner's preference indicated in her application was to be appointed with the RRVUNL which has not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition and relief against RRVUNL cannot be sought as has been done. Hence the petition be dismissed. Heard. Considered. 5. I find no force in the contention of counsel for respondent that for reason of amendment in the Regulations of 1974 under order 92 dated 6-8-2015 effective 1-4-2015 the petitioner cannot now seek appointment to the post of Accounts Officer despite availability of two vacant posts for the year 2013-14, due to non joining of Mahima Keshwani and Monika Sharma against the select-list dated 5-7-2014/ revised select-list dated 6-1-2015. It cannot be anybody's case that the amendment of Regulations of 1974 under order dated 6-8-2015 can be made effective retrospectively for the vacancies of the year 2013-14 for the post of Accounts Officer which are in issue. The vacancies for the year 2013-14 were advertised on 2/3-10-2013 and the select-list based on due process thereon was prepared on 5-7-2014 and then revised on 6-1-2015. The selections were complete all much prior to 1-4-2015, when the amendment to the Regulations of 1974 on the method of recruitment of Accounts Officers purports to be effective. 6. It is an admitted fact that three posts of Accounts Officer were reserved for female candidates in General Category against the vacancies of 2013-14. The selections were complete all much prior to 1-4-2015, when the amendment to the Regulations of 1974 on the method of recruitment of Accounts Officers purports to be effective. 6. It is an admitted fact that three posts of Accounts Officer were reserved for female candidates in General Category against the vacancies of 2013-14. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner secured 217 marks along with Monika Sharma, but was placed at No.42, below Monika Sharma at No. 41 in General Category (Female) in view of being younger than her, in view of Regulation 20(1) of the Regulations of 1974. It is however also admitted that Monika Sharma and Mahima Keshwani did not join on the post of Accounts Officer despite their selection. Thus out of the three posts of Accounts Officer reserved for females in General Category, against vacancies of 2013-14, two posts remained unfilled. In my considered view, the petitioner being the next in the select list after Monika Sharma ought to have, in the circumstance, been offered one of the two vacant posts of Accounts Officer, which remained unfilled due to non joining of Mahima Keshwani and Monika Sharma as at the relevant time the select-list dated 5-7-2014/ revised select-list dated 6-1-2015 was operative as per Regulations of 1974. 7. It is indeed true that a selected candidate does not have a indefeasible right to appointment against a vacant post. Yet it is equally true that refusal of appointment to a selected candidate against a vacant post advertised, on which appointment is first offered to a more meritorious candidate, but refused, cannot be denied to the next meritorious candidate on the whims and caprice of the appointing authority. When Mahima Keshwani and Monika Sharma did not join on the post of Accounts Officer in RRVUNL, reserved for General Category (Female) despite their selection, the petitioner had the right to be considered against the said vacancies on the post of Accounts Officer reserved for General Category (Female) in any other Power Sector Company to which the advertisement-recruitment process and selection related. 8. 8. The question which remains to be addressed is that whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief against RRVUNL, both for the reason that the said company has not been impleaded in the writ petition as also for the reason that the first preference indicated by the petitioner in her application form was for appointment as Accounts Officer with RRVPNL. I am of the considered view that the objection in this regard is wholly technical in nature and cannot constitute a substantive defence. Admittedly the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Accounts Officer pursuant to advertisement dated 2/3-10-2013 in all five power sector companies of the State of Rajasthan. Examination therefor was conducted jointly by the RRVPNL as a nodal agency on behalf of all the five companies. Even though the petitioner may have not given first preference for appointment in RRVUNL, yet she cannot be excluded for appointment against a vacant post reserved for females in general category as per the advertisement dated 2/3-10-2013 in the said company. Admittedly a vacancy on the post of Accounts Officer pertaining to the year 2013-14 obtains in the respondent company RRVPNL owing to non joining of Mahima Keshwani. The petitioner is thus entitled to a direction for being considered for appointment as Accounts Officer in the vacancy of General Category (Female) pertaining to 2013-14 with the RRVPNL. 9. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of Accounts Officer as per her merit in the General Category (Female) in the merit list pursuant to advertisement dated 2/3-10-2013 against the vacancies for the year 2013-14. This process be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner's appointment will be effective from the date when other General Category (Female) candidates in select-list dated 5-7-2014/revised select-list dated 6-1-2015 were appointed. She would be entitled to all benefits of seniority and pay fixation, but not to actual payment of salary till the date of her joining. The petition stands accordingly allowed.