JUDGMENT : 1. By the impugned order dated 10th August, 2017 (Annexure-6), 32 candidates, who were held ineligible for appointment to the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant ('TRA', for short) have been declared eligible and selected for the appointment to the post of Junior Account ('JA', for short), according to their second preference; of which the petitioners are aggrieved of, and therefore, have instituted the present writ application praying for the following relief(s) : “(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the result dated 10.08.2017 (Anx.6) to the extent of ineligible persons for Tehsil Revenue Accountant, declared successful for Junior Accountant be quashed and set aside; (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the petitioners eligible for Tehsil Revenue Accountant as well as for Junior Accountant, be declared selected against the post of Junior Accountant by invoking second option; (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No. 1 may be directed to declare fresh result of the petitioners by invoking their second option and the respondents be further directed to give them appointment on the post of Junior Accountant from the date which candidates lesser in merit than the petitioners have been appointed with all consequential benefits thereto; (iv) Any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be 5 passed in favour of the petitioners besides to costs of this litigation.” 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts are that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of TRA/JA in response to the advertisement dated 18th September, 2013, issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission 10 ('RPSC', for short), inviting applications from the eligible candidates. Examination was conducted on 4th October, 2017. The revised result was declared on 10th August, 2017. The petitioners were selected for the post of TRA, in view of their first preference and 32 candidates were selected for the post of JA, which was their second preference as they were ineligible for the 15 post of TRA. Examination was conducted on 4th October, 2017. The revised result was declared on 10th August, 2017. The petitioners were selected for the post of TRA, in view of their first preference and 32 candidates were selected for the post of JA, which was their second preference as they were ineligible for the 15 post of TRA. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that they are higher in merit than those 32 candidates, who have been accorded appointment to the post of JA, and therefore, the petitioners ought to have been considered for appointment to the post of JA for the 32 candidates, who have been subsequently declared eligible, were not even eligible for appointment to the 20 post of TRA. Hence, according appointment to those 32 candidates, who are lower in merit to the petitioners, on the post of JA; is bad in the eye of law. 3. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the respondent - RPSC vide advertisement dated 18th September, 2013, invited applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on 3491 posts of JA and 156 posts of TRA. Vide corrigendum dated 31st October, 2014, qualification for the post of JA was amended and vide another corrigendum dated 16th April, 2015, number of the vacancies for the post of TRA, was increased from 156 to 279. The respondent-RPSC conducted a common examination for both the posts on 4th October, 2016, and the result was declared on 6th May, 2017. In the first result, that was declared on 17th May, 2017, and then the revised result on 7th June, 2017; the petitioners were declared successful/eligible for the post of TRA, and accordingly, they joined as a consequence of their selection. 4. According to the learned counsel, the impugned revised result, that was declared by the respondent - RPSC on 10th August, 2017, according appointment to 32 candidates on the post of JA as per their second preference; who were not even eligible for appointment to the post of TRA in terms of their qualification; is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners ought to have been first given option/preference being higher in merit. The petitioners ought to have been first given option/preference being higher in merit. Learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioners are eligible for the post of TRA as well as JA and are higher in merit to those 32 candidates, who have been selected for the post of JA vide impugned order/result dated 10th August, 2017. 5. Moreover, for these 32 candidates were ineligible and were declared eligible for the post of JA acting upon their second option/preference; hence, such an action is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent - RPSC while drawing 'waiting list' for the post of JA and TRA, has put the meritorious candidates in the main list for TRA and not in the main list for JA. That apart, there are vacancies of the post of JA on account of non-joining of many selected candidates, and therefore, the petitioners' claim for appointment on the post of JA, merits acceptance. 6. In response to the writ application, the respondent-RPSC so also the private respondents have filed their counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioners. 7. The respondent-RPSC has pleaded that the qualifications for the post of JA and TRA were published along with the advertisement wherein it was specifically detailed out that “for the purpose of this rule a degree in Arts or Science does not include a degree in medicine, engineering and) technology.” However, later on, the eligibility for the post of JA was amended vide notification dated 1st October, 2014, by which a candidates was only required to be in possession of a college degree of graduation. The said new qualification or eligibility criteria for the post of JA was issued by the respondent - RPSC on 31st October, 2014. Thereafter, examination was conducted on 4th October, 2016, followed by declaration of the result on 7th November, 2016, and revised result on 7th June, 2017, wherein 3497 candidates were declared successful for the post of JA services and 279 candidates were declared successful for the post of TRA. 8. Learned counsel further urged that the successful candidates were required to submit application form with 'preference' and details. The petitioners were declared successful on merit for the post of TRA. Considering their 'first preference' for the post of TRA, they were accorded appointment on the same post. 8. Learned counsel further urged that the successful candidates were required to submit application form with 'preference' and details. The petitioners were declared successful on merit for the post of TRA. Considering their 'first preference' for the post of TRA, they were accorded appointment on the same post. The 32 candidates, who were found successful but with degree in medicine, engineering and technology, rendered them ineligible for the post of TRA. However, they were adjudged eligible for the post of JA. Accordingly, those 32 candidates have been selected as per their merit for the post of JA. Thus, the revised result was rightly declared on 10th August, 2017, of which the petitioners are aggrieved of. Be that as it may, the petitioners are precluded from raising the dispute now for they were appointed on the post of TRA on the basis of their 'first preference' and they have already joined on the said post. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent number 4 and 5 endorsing the stand of the respondent - RPSC, urged that the petitioners were selected and appointed on the post of TRA according to their 'first preference'. The respondent number 4 and 5, indicated their 'first preference' for the post of TRA and 'second preference' for the post of JA. However, they were adjudged ineligible for the post of TRA, but were found eligible and qualified for the post of JA. Hence, the respondent-RPSC, committed no illegality in according appointment to the respondent number 4 and 5 on the post of JA, which was their 'second preference'. 10. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Shovit Jhajharia, emphasized that 'preference' as indicated by a participating candidate has its importance and once the petitioners were accorded appointment on the post of TRA as their 'first preference'; any claim, as to ; appointment on the post of JA, subsequently staked by the petitioners, cannot be sustained. Moreover, the petitioners were keen enough to join the post of TRA, obviously for the reason that they had indicated the post of TRA as 'first preference' and had joined the service. Hence, qua the impugned revised result issued by the respondent - RPSC dated 10th August, 2017, whereby the 32 candidates have been declared successful on the basis of their 'second preference, the petitioners cannot have any grievance. Hence, qua the impugned revised result issued by the respondent - RPSC dated 10th August, 2017, whereby the 32 candidates have been declared successful on the basis of their 'second preference, the petitioners cannot have any grievance. That apart, the petitioners neither tiled any application nor made any request to the respondent - RPSC for change of their preference before the examination was conducted. Neither they submitted any document nor any application for consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post of JA, at the time of offer of appointment offered against the post of TRA. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the relevant materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at Bar. 12. Indisputably, the petitioners in the recruitment process involved herein, gave their first option/preference for the post of TRA and have also joined on that post so soon they were offered appointment. The plea on behalf of the respondents resisting the claim of the petitioners for they had indicated their 'first preference' for appointment to the post of TRA, has some substance. Once, the petitioners were successful and offered appointment according to their 'first preference'; their claim for 'second preference' would stand terminated. That apart, if at all, the petitioners desired for appointment on the post of JA, they ought to have indicated it to be their 'first preference'. Moreover, the petitioners had ample opportunity to institute proceedings for chance of their 'preference', if they so desired. However, even upto the date of examination, no such request was ever addressed by the petitioners to the concerned authorities. Even before the examination was conducted, the candidates were given an opportunity for change of their 'preference' vide press-note dated 25th August, 2015, upto 7th September, 2015, with a nominal charge of Rs. 300/- (Rupees : Three Hundred); however, the petitioners did not avail of that opportunity for reasons best known to them. In the factual matrix aforesaid; the claim of the petitioners for appointment on the post of JA, appears to be an afterthought. Be that as it may, the petitioners having opted for their 'first preference' for appointment to the post of TRA; cannot now stake their claim for appointment on the post of JA, as per their 'second preference'. 13. In the factual matrix aforesaid; the claim of the petitioners for appointment on the post of JA, appears to be an afterthought. Be that as it may, the petitioners having opted for their 'first preference' for appointment to the post of TRA; cannot now stake their claim for appointment on the post of JA, as per their 'second preference'. 13. As far as the 32 candidates, who were adjudged eligible in view of their educational qualification for the post of JA, but not for the post of TRA, a post of their 'first preference', have been rightly considered for appointment to the post of JA, a post of their 'second preference', in view of the revised eligibility criteria notified by the respondent - RPSC through notification dated 31st October, 2014. 14. For the reasons and discussions herein above and in view of conspicuous facts of the case at hand; the writ petition instituted by the petitioners is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 15. Ordered accordingly. 16. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.