JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by Order dated 24.02.2020 passed by learned Single judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-University vide advertisement dated 01.11.2012 invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in various subjects. Appellant applied for the same and was kept under the reserved list. Appellant and two other persons thereafter, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition stating therein that one of the person who was selected and who was in the main list has not joined and, therefore, they should be appointed against that vacancy. The said writ petition bearing No. 11768/2014 filed by the petitioner and Civil Writ Petition No. 403/2014 filed by Dr. Balraj Vishnoi were decided by the High Court vide order dated 29.01.2016 and it was observed that out of eight posts reserved for physically disabled candidates, seven posts have already been filled, leaving only one post vacant, which is due to non-joining by one of the candidate. The Court also observed that the same should have been filled from amongst the candidates of that category and, therefore, a direction was given for appointment of one candidate against one post who is having higher merit position. 3. The respondent-University vide order dated 18.06.2016 found the appellant to be highest in the merit under the Physical Handicapped in the General Category and was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (History) on a probation period of 2 years. Appellant joined the service on 01.07.2016. Thereafter, appellant preferred a writ petition claiming that respondent-University may be directed to treat the initial date of appointment of the appellant w.e.f. the last candidate appointed in the Department of History and accordingly, this period till 01.07.2016 must be counted as her service period. It was also prayed that the University be directed to allow notional benefits, pay fixation and seniority of the appellant after treating her date of appointment w.e.f. the date on which the last candidate was appointed in the Department of History. Yet another prayer was made that the appellant be paid minimum of the pay scale of post of Assistant Professor during the period of probation. 4. Yet another prayer was made that the appellant be paid minimum of the pay scale of post of Assistant Professor during the period of probation. 4. The learned Single Judge in the above writ petition held that the name of the appellant figured in the reserved list and on account of non-joining of a candidate, her claim of appointment became alive and in those circumstances, Court allowed the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant on 29.01.2016. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that a candidate who is appointed under the reserved list forms separate class and would be thus entitled to service benefits from the date he/she joins. Learned Single Judge, therefore, refused to interfere with the order passed by the University of Rajasthan dated 28.09.2019 and dismissed the writ petition, aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that if a candidate does not join, then the person in the reserved category should be given appointment from the date when the earlier appointments were made. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. Vs. Satpal, (2013) 11 SCC 737 and Judgment of the High Court in Alka Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13084/2011 decided by Rajasthan High Court on 17.03.2016. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University has vehemently opposed the appeal. It is contended that the date of initial appointment cannot be changed and all service benefits accrue to a person from the date of his initial appointment. It is also argued that date of appointment cannot be changed to a date on which the appellant was not borne in service. It is also contended that in the writ petition filed by the appellant, wherein a direction was issued to consider the case of the appellant along with two other persons and give appointment to the most meritorious, however, there was no relief that the appointment would relate back to the date when other persons were appointed. It is thus, contended that the appellant does not have any case. 7. We have considered the contentions. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, appellant’s name is appearing in the reserved list. It is thus, contended that the appellant does not have any case. 7. We have considered the contentions. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, appellant’s name is appearing in the reserved list. The candidates from the main list were recruited and since one of them did not join, the writ petition filed by the appellant and other persons was allowed and respondent-University was directed to fill up the vacancy from amongst the most meritorious candidates. Consequently, thereupon, the appellant was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of History. 9. From perusal of the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition No. 11768/2014 filed by the appellant, there is no direction to give appointment from an earlier date, rather the direction was only to fill up the vacancy from amongst the three petitioners who were before the High Court i.e. Priti Singh, Archana Tiwari and Dr. Balraj Vishnoi. The judgment cited by counsel for the appellant i.e. State of Jammu & Kashmir (supra), was a case where the Supreme Court directed that the order of appointment will relate back to the permissible date contemplated under the Rules laying down conditions of the service of the cadre to which the respondent will be appointed, however, no such direction was given in the Writ Petition No. 11768/2014 filed by the appellant. It is also appropriate to note that in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Arbind Jee, Civil Writ Appeal No. 3767/2010 decided by the Apex Court on 28.09.2021, wherein it was observed as under: “10. As earlier noted, the respondent entered service only on 10.2.1996 and yet under the impugned judgment, the High Court directed counting of his seniority from 20.11.1985 when he was not borne in service. The jurisprudence in the field of service law would advise us that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an employee is not even borne in service. It is also necessary to bear in mind that retrospective seniority unless directed by court or expressly provided by the applicable Rules, should not be allowed, as in so doing, others who had earlier entered service, will be impacted.” 10. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the date of joining is the date from which the person is entitled to have his service counted. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the date of joining is the date from which the person is entitled to have his service counted. It cannot be a date prior to the date of his joining, more particularly, when the appellant was in a separate category i.e. she was in a reserved list. It was not necessary for the University to appoint the appellant, however, since there was a direction of the High Court, the University appointed the appellant. There was no direction of the High Court to give her an earlier date of appointment and consequently, University has not erred in denying the prayer of the appellant to treat her appointment from an earlier date. Learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 11. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the present appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.