ORDER Per: Sanjeev Sachdeva, Acting Chief Justice 1. Appellant impugns order dated 13.3.2024, whereby the petition filed by respondent No.1 impugning the appointment given to respondent No.5 was allowed and a direction was issued to the appellant to grant appointment to more meritorious candidates after removing the name of respondent No.5, whose mark sheet was found to be forged. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a direction to appoint the candidate from the same selection process could not have been issued for the reason that the competent authority opined that none of the other candidates fulfill the requisite qualification and as such the selection process was cancelled. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contends that respondent No.1 does fulfill the requisite qualification and a general observation that none of the candidates in the process satisfies the eligibility conditions, could not have been issued and process should have been completed. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge after holding that the appointed candidate i.e. respondent No.5 had forged his mark sheet and was thus disqualified from appointment has merely directed the appellant/authority to proceed further with the selection process by removing the name of respondent No.5. There is no direction issued to the authority to appoint one of the remaining candidates. It is open to the authority to consider the remaining candidates and only if they satisfy the requisite eligibility conditions, the selection be made. In case, none of the candidates fulfilled the eligibility conditions, the authority may proceed further for filling up the post in accordance with law. 5. We note that there is no specific finding returned by the appellant that respondent No.1 does not satisfy the requisite eligibility condition except for a general finding that none of the candidates fulfill the said requirement. It would be open to the appellant to test the eligibility of the remaining candidates and only if they fulfill the requisite qualification, steps be taken for filling up the post from the earlier selection process. 6. Appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the eligibility of respondent No.1 for the said post or the ineligibility as alleged by the appellant. 7. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.