JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to give posting to the petitioner and his attendance may be marked and salary be paid to him from the date of his appointment order dated 1.9.2018. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.4.2018 issued by the respondents for appointment to the post of Safai Karamchari, the petitioner applied for the same and claimed benefit of reservation as an outstanding sports person. 3. By order dated 1.9.2018 (Annex.3), the petitioner was accorded appointment after his name was drawn in the lottery held for the purpose. Whereafter, it is indicated that despite issuance of appointment order dated 1.9.2018, the petitioner was not accorded posting despite his complying with the requirements of the appointment order. 4. A notice for demand of justice was issued, which was also not responded. 5. On issuance of notice of the present writ petition, after seeking time on few occasions, a response has been filed on behalf of the respondent - Municipal Corporation inter alia indicating that the writ petition is premature and that as the petitioner did not fulfill the requirements of getting benefit of outstanding sports person, a notice dated 12.2.2019 (Annex.R/2) has been issued to the petitioner to clarify on his entitlement and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 6. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner referring to the procedure of drawing of lots (lottery) and claiming estoppel against the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that even assuming the case of the respondents regarding ineligibility of the petitioner for benefit of status as an outstanding sports person, looking to the procedure for drawn of lots, once the petitioner has been included in the lottery pertaining to outstanding sports person, where he has succeeded and, therefore, has been deprived of participation in lottery of other categories, the respondents now cannot indicate ineligibility of the petitioner in his status as an outstanding sports person and, therefore, the issuance of show-cause notice itself is bad and deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation made submissions that notice has been issued in consonance with the directions issued by this Court in Ravi Jajot & Ors. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation made submissions that notice has been issued in consonance with the directions issued by this Court in Ravi Jajot & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10496/2018, decided on 30.08.2018, wherein, while dealing with the several aspects pertaining to the recruitment in question, it has been directed that for excluding ineligibile candidates, who have been issued appointment orders after giving them opportunity of hearing, their services may be terminated and, therefore, the respondents have issued notice to the petitioner as it is found that his selection as an outstanding sports person is incorrect on account of his ineligibility as per the requirements for the said category and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. Initially, the petition was filed by the petitioner raising grievance regarding non-issuance of posting order pursuant to the order of appointment dated 1.9.2018. In response, the Municipal Corporation besides questioning the eligibility of the petitioner as an outstanding sports person, also attached a show-cause notice dated 12.2.2019, issued during pendency of the present writ petition, wherein, the petitioner was called upon to respond regarding his eligibility as an outstanding sports person. Though by way of rejoinder, the petitioner has sought to claim estoppel and has questioned the validity of the show-cause notice as well, however, at this stage, the challenge appears to be premature, inasmuch as, the respondents have so far not decided the show- cause notice issued to the petitioner and the appointment order of the petitioner has so far not been cancelled. 11. It is only in case that the respondents take a decision to cancel the appointment of the petitioner, which would give a cause to the petitioner to question the validity of the said order based on the pleas sought to be raised by way of rejoinder. 12. So far as the challenge made in the writ petition regarding non-issuance of posting order is concerned, once during pendency of the present writ petition, a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner questioning his eligibility as an outstanding sports person, regarding which, apparently no material has been placed on record, the action of the respondents at this stage regarding non-issuance of posting, cannot be faulted. 13. In view thereof, no interference in the matter at this stage in the present writ petition is called for. 14. Reply to the show-cause notice has already been filed by the petitioner. It would be required of the respondents to accord opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, properly deal with the reply to the show-cause notice and decide the same within a period of three weeks from the date of this order. 15. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the determination made by the respondents, the petitioner would be free to question the same in accordance with law. 16. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.